Talk:Doctor Atomic

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

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

The Many Lives of Eric Owens

The "eric owens" that wikipedia links to in the 'sf production' section is definitely not the eric owens that performed in that production. The operatic eric owens is a large black opera singer, not a skinhead folk singer.

Above comment is from 2006 and has been addressed in an edit sometime between now and then. Conflatuman (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Focus

What is WRONG with this page???

It has practically nothing to do with him personally and instead serves as a description for one of only one of his Operas.

Page now focuses on Doctor Atomic, preceding anon comment outdated Conflatuman (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adams minimalist or post-minimalist?

This is simply ridiculous

John Adams gets the post-minimalist label while Glass IS STILL CALLED A MINIMALIST? Give me a break. Besides Adams WAS a minimalist for most of his career and is still much closer to the movement than Glass, etc... Conflatuman (talk) Above was anon comment 2008, since addressed

accurate minimalism?

is it really accurate to call adams a minimalist composer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.62.12 (talk) 08:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC) update: i just looked into it... this should probably be changed. by the time of this production, adam's work can't really be considered minimalist any longer. in light of his ouvre, it seems that it's probably accurate to say that he was a minimalist composer earlier in his career, but has since moved into something like 'post-minimalism.' his work doesn't currently and hasn't recently fit the minimalist mold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.17.62.12 (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Adams is better described as post-minimalist these days, so I'll change that link to the post-minimalist page where he is actually already listed! 87.194.75.125 (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a minimalist

To be clear, the minimalist movement in music used static harmony, regular pulsation and repetition of short phrases to create music which had a busy surface texture but which was not goal-oriented (in contrast to traditional ideas of form, where musical material is introduced, gets developed and eventually reaches a climactic moment). Post-minimalism takes some or more of the techniques of minimalism, such as repetition or busy surface texture over slow-moving harmony, but uses it within a traditionally teleological structure. Adams has been writing music in this style ever since Phrygian Gates (1979). Philip Glass and Steve Reich have both been writing post-minimalist music for at least 20 years, but (unlike Adams) they used to write in a more "purely" or "classically" minimalist style. --Eoinc (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adams IS a minimalist

And has been for most of his carreer.

Old anon comment since addressed Conflatuman (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libretto

Where can I find the libretto? 129.2.175.70 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here. It was listed in the article but not sufficiently labeled: [1] ~~ Softlavender (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opera or Non-Opera?

There is a major debate in the opera community about whether Doctor Atomic is or is not an opera. Much of the debate centers on the use of amplification, since many in the community define the operatic art as "without amplification of any kind". There are other arguments on both sides. A new section, with citations, should be included. Oconnell usa (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any such debate about Doctor Atomic. It's clearly an opera. If you think there is some controversy about this, please give us some proof by way of legitimate reliable-source links. Softlavender (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diffusing category

Category:Opera/Category:Opera by composer appears to be a diffusing category. Just as Category:Rivers of Europe is broken down by country into the subcategories Rivers of Albania, Rivers of Andorra, etc. Why would you think otherwise? It has the same indicia. --Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Opera is undisputedly a diffusing category, but this article was never so categorised. OTOH, following Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Category guidelines, Category:Operas always was non-diffusing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doctor Atomic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606205405/http://www.earbox.com:80/W-doctoratomic-symphony.html to http://www.earbox.com/W-doctoratomic-symphony.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100217034836/http://www.earbox.com:80/W-doctoratomic.html to http://www.earbox.com/W-doctoratomic.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.operainfo.org/broadcast/operaBackground.cgi?id=1000000000000130&language=1&bid=1000000000000896
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.operainfo.org/broadcast/operaSynopsis.cgi?id=1000000000000130&language=1
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.operainfo.org/broadcast/operaStory.cgi?id=1000000000000130&language=1
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.operainfo.org/broadcast/operaCast.cgi?id=1000000000000130&language=1
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.operainfo.org/broadcast/operaBackground.cgi?id=1000000000000130&language=1&bid=1000000000000895
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.operainfo.org/broadcast/operaBackground.cgi?id=1000000000000130&language=1&bid=1500000000000887

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Oppenheimer

The article states that Kitty is anxious about her husbands work. But after having seen the opera, I believe it is untrue. Kitty is certainly anxious, but like most people and not particularly for atomic bombs. Since the statement has no source I will delete it,- unless otherwise told - because it is making the opera banal. --Cayrouses (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]