Talk:List of opera genres/Archive 1

Archive 1

Additions

Perhaps Intermedio? - Voceditenore (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I did intentionally exclude Intermedio (which comes under the Classical music project rather than opera) and masque while including intermezzo, but maybe there is a case for having it? As there examples of what we could call 'intermedio' operas? --Kleinzach 06:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It probably is best to keep them out of the list proper. But frankly, Intermedio is much more closely related to opera than it is to classical music, despite the banner on its talk page. The intermedi were important early precursors of operas and for a while co-existed with them, as did masques, and madrigali concertati (e.g. Il Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda). Perhaps you could have a See also section (with a one or two sentence introduction) directing readers to the genres of musical drama that were the pre-cursors of opera:

• Intermedio
• Masque
• Madrigale concertato
• Madrigal comedy

Voceditenore (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

PS. This is an excellent and incredibly useful list, beautfully laid out too. Kudos! Voceditenore (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've added a 'See also' section to cover these. No problem. What I have been trying to do is distinguish between genuine, distinct genres and synonyms. For example, 'dramma giocoso' is obviously a genuine genre, but 'farsa comica' (used by Rossini, but not yet listed) is probably just 'farsa' decorated with an adjective. It's also sometimes difficult to determine which is the main, established term, e.g. Azione sacra or Sepolcro. --Kleinzach 00:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re azione sacra vs sepolcro. That's a complicated one. You might find this reference useful [1]. It seems to imply a slight distinction in that an azione sacra can be about any biblical subject (e.g. Guglielmi's Debora e Sisara is described in various sources as an azione sacra, as is Mozart's Betulia Liberata and Porpora's Il Gideone and Il martirio di S Giovanni Nepomuceno) but the sepolcro (Italian for sepulchre) was restricted in its subject matter to the passion and crucifixion of Christ and was staged, unlike the azione sacra. The example given in the table is on Christ's passion and crucifixion and is described as a sepolcro. Draghi, wrote many sepolcri. [2] To further complicate matters, The Concise Grove Dictionary of Music says that in the 18th century azione sacra was a synonym for oratorio. [3] Also, is the term azione sacra only for works "Performed at Vienna court"? There are a number of later Italian works, that look much more like operas, were performed in Italian theatres, and are described in their libretti as azione sacra, e.g. works by Niccolò Antonio Zingarelli like Gerusalemme distrutta. There's a bigger list here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made a small change, but I don't want to dive into a lot of detail because I'm not intending to proceed with writing lots of short articles on different genres. (I mentioned it more as an example than a problem.) If you like to start articles on azione sacra and sepolcro, that would be excellent and I would make sure this list reflects the new information. I've actually got a list of another 30-odd Italian genre names that I'm trying to make sense of - also a lot of French and German ones. --Kleinzach 10:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, it seemed you were unsure if sepolcro and azione sacra were synonymous and I thought the clarification would help. But I'll just let you get on with it in the future. If you ever do need help with references for any of the terms, just give me shout. Voceditenore (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed. As always I hope the scholarship will go into articles rather than talk pages. The better the articles on individual genres, the sounder the coverage will become as whole. The purpose of the list is to provide a consistent schemat/structure (or whatever) for genres overall. (It should be noted that Oxford and Grove are both internally consistent but not (obviously) with each other.) If you want a challenge, you could have a go at the 'tragedia family': tragedia, tragedia in musica, tragico, tragedia lirica, and melodramma tragico. They are all commonly used. You could approach them either from the point of view of individual articles (i.e. focussing on the subject of the articles), or from the point of the list (focussing on the relationships between the terms.) --Kleinzach 23:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dramma per musica

As I think I've mentioned before, I've long wanted to write a short article, based on Oxford and Grove, on dramma per musica. It originally meant a play written to be set to music (i.e. a libretto), and this usage continued beyond the demise of opera seria, e.g. in many of Rossini's operas. The opera seria article is positively misleading on the subject, so the original redirect wasn't very helpful. Neither is the current one, as the link to the table doesn't work! I could spend a bit of time on this during the next few days. --GuillaumeTell 16:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (paying one of my currently irregular visits to WP)

Only a technical, not a content question: In which way does the REDIRECT Dramma per musica not work? Here, IE8 or IE7 or FF 3.0.4 all lead to this article (List of opera genres) and position the table row "Dramma per musica" at the top of the browsing window. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm! It certainly works OK now. Previously it dumped me at the top of the article, as did another redirect here that I tried. Perhaps if I'd waited a little longer (or if my connexion was working faster) it would have whizzed on and put me in the right place. Sorry to unnecessarily impugn your expertise! --GuillaumeTell 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

GT. Welcome back. A proper article on Dramma per musica would be very useful. It's important because it's the commonest genre in the whole of opera. Many, many works are thus designated. You will see that I changed dramma per musica from a redirect to opera seria into a redirect to this list. It would be better still as an article. You may also like to elaborate the entry on the list. --Kleinzach 01:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Right! I'll make a start this afternoon. --GuillaumeTell 11:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to add more examples, etc., etc. Time for my dinner, but I'll be back later on.--GuillaumeTell 18:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. What about cats? At the moment I think all the drammi per musica are in Category:Opera seria. --Kleinzach 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, are there really only 47 opera serias (mostly by Handel) in WP? Actually, my next task is to obliterate all the ignorant assertions that "dramma per musica" means "drama through music" in articles such as Opera seria and Claudio Monteverdi. But that won't be until Friday at the earliest. --GuillaumeTell 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Table format

Is there a reason why this list is in table format? The whole section feels overly wide (it gives me a horizontal scroll bar) and difficult to read. I feel that a definition-list format would suit better, although I don't know how to shoehorn the major composers and examples there.

Acte de ballet

An opéra ballet consisting of a single entrée. 18th century.

Afterpiece

18th/early 19th century short opera or pantomime performed after a full-length play.

--MinorContributor (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The table format was chosen for succinct, sortable, and comprehensive representation of large amounts of data. Your examples above omit considerable information present in the table.

I think it can be expected that users interested in this material would employ screen resolutions of at least 1280 horizontal pixels. But even using only 1024 horizontal pixels doesn't produce a horizontal scrollbar here, using Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox. Designing web pages for resolutions below 1024 horizontal pixels would be a disservice to most readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I did say my example lacked some of the data, but it shouldn't be too hard to put everything there without losing readability.
• Having 1280 pixels in screen width doesn't mean the user can/will/is willing to have the browser window maximised.
• The sorting doesn't work. Sorting by "First known example", we get 1800-1786-1856-1890-1875.
• What extra information sorting would give to a reader? Oldest/newest genres? Are these really important?
• Gecko (Firefox, Seamonkey) has pretty bad table formatting, not knowing which column should get the most space. In my experience, it usually defaults to the last column. I notice the "Description" column is given 36 per cent of width. Gecko doesn't seem to honour this, and gives me only one to three words per line on that column (Gecko 1.9.0).
• The references column is problematic in that it isn't directly linked to the column it gives the references to. Does it refer to the description? Major works? Notable composers? Something else? --MinorContributor (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Many, if not most, tables on Wikipedia use a lot of horizontal screen real estate. This page has >1200 links to it and had 712 views in June 2009 without complaint. If you intend to make substantial changes to it, I suggest you present your concept at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. I'd also recommend that you prepare a version in your user space to clarify the design and for others to look at in that discussion.

The sorting and the horizontal column distribution works here, using IE 7 & 8; a habitual IE user, I have been told many times: "get your browser fixed."

I just looked up the table's reference for Rubinstein's "Geistliche Oper" (Taruskin in Grove), and the whole table row seems to be a condensation of Taruskin's entry. Do you have any particular concerns about verifiablity? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'language' column

The language column was removed while I was away. Does this present problems? The information was there not just to indicate the language as such, but also which tradition the genre belonged to. This information doesn't normally appear in the description, as it would have been redundant in the original scheme. Now? --Kleinzach 00:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections I will put the language column back. --Kleinzach 07:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kinderoper

Is Kinderoper considered a genre in English? We do have a Category:Children's operas, which seems to suggest it, but I'm not sure. Should it be added to the table? I know that there would be considerable overlap with Zauberoper, Märchenoper and their synonyms, but it seems a gap in the list to me. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a ref? It's not in Grove. I think we need a definition, otherwise I think it would be fine to add it. --Kleinzach 02:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a reference at the moment; it just struck me as odd that we have a large number of opera genres, some obscure, and a Category:Children's operas, but no such genre. I'll keep looking. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The list does, however, have "Schuloper". Whatever results from the above, it's important to distinguish between a) operas written to be performed entirely (or mostly?) by children, b) operas written specifically for audiences of children, c) operas considered to be suitable for children (a minefield) and d) operas in which children appear as characters or chorus members. Just my three ha'pence. --GuillaumeTell 18:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My own definition, unencumbered by any research, would follow the text at the Category:Children's operas: "At present this category contains operas for a juvenile audience as well as operas that may be performed by children." In other words, your points a) and b). I don't think the definition is much of an issue (although the term in German also applies to an ensemble or house specialised in performances for children), the question I'm not sure about is whether there is such a term in English opera literature or reviews; as Kleinzach noted above: are there references for its usage? Given that the List of opera genres consists almost completely of foreign language terms, I find it hard to believe that Kinderoper is never used. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My Oxford Dictionary of Opera has an article "Children's Opera", mostly about my point a) but also raising point d). Grove Opera has a long article with the same title, almost entirely about point a) but with a nod to point c), and has a separate article "Child Performers" which deals with point d). Both imply point b) as well. Anyway, neither mentions the term "Kinderoper", and I've never come across it. The Viking Guide calls Der Jasager a School Opera and Let's Make an Opera a Children's Opera. As for Category:Children's operas, I'm dubious about the "juvenile audience" aspect: Hänsel und Gretel? Königskinder???? Oh, the de.wikipedia Kinderoper article seems to be mostly about opera theatres for children, whereas Schuloper is about Children's Operas. For English Wikipedia, I'd go for "Children's operas" as the term for the genre and the title of any article that may be written about them. --GuillaumeTell 18:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Definitions (the first section) it is says "This list does not include terms that are unhistorical, or vague and merely descriptive, such as 'rescue opera' [3], 'comic opera' [4], 'sacred opera', 'tragic opera' or 'one-act opera' etc.' I've looked at Category:Children's operas and I don't see any genre there, only a subject. In the case of the Grove article, at no point does it suggest that 'children's opera' is a genre as such. --Kleinzach 22:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That's settled then. Sorry for the distraction. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Rescue opera

Following today's discussion at Talk:Rescue opera, changes have been made to this article [4]. The following words have been deleted from the introduction:

''". . . such as 'rescue opera' <ref>'Rescue opera' is an unhistorical term of limited usefulness. It is not an authentic genre like 'opera buffa', and was coined only in the later 19th or early 20th century"'', Charleton, David: 'Rescue opera' in ''The New Grove Dictionary of Opera'', ed. Stanley Sadie (London, 1992)"''</ref>

'Rescue opera' been added to the list, referenced to the Oxford Dictionary of Opera, which defines 'rescue opera' as "the name given to an opera in which an essential part of the plot turns on the rescue . . .". (though the entry does go on to talk about an "identifiable genre" , unlike the Oxford Dictionary of Music which merely calls it a "type of opera").

However the only thoroughgoing treatment of the term and its history is that of (deleted!) David Charlton in Grove, who calls the would-be 'genre' unhistorical and inauthentic. For that reason I hope the editor who inserted 'rescue opera' in this list, can now take it out. --Kleinzach 08:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

As I noted at Talk:Rescue opera, many if not most scholars disagree with Charlton. (Including, er, the cited source which says that it's an identifiable genre, as you yourself noted? Seriously, this fetishization of Charlton has got to stop. You've provided no evidence that he is more authoritative than any of the dozens of sources that identify "rescue opera" as a genre.) I'm leaving it in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Which scholars have written about this subject? Can you please be specific about which scholars have developed an alternative view about this term and what they have said? --Kleinzach 09:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I already referred you to the sources cited in Rescue opera, to the source cited here, and to a helpful (though not citable) list found by googling the rather obvious " 'rescue opera' genre." You might disagree with the scholars who use it, but you are not qualified to dismiss them. Good night. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It clearly explains in the introduction that this is a list of historical terms. 'Rescue opera' is not historical so it's been deleted from the list. --Kleinzach 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

So I've changed the introduction. You could have done the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you tried to change the criteria on which the whole list is based. You have already agreed that 'rescue opera' is not a historical term so your edit was not in good faith. In Talk:Rescue_opera you wrote: "I never claimed that the term was contemporary - indeed, I rephrased the lead to make it more clear that the term was recent."

Also please don't leave threatening messages on my talk page. I will simply delete them. --Kleinzach 02:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Kleinzach, this article does not belong to you. You are not the sole arbiter of what are and are not appropriate criteria. Looking back on the article history, the list has always contained ahistorical genres, despite the claim that it did not. If you would like it to contain only historical genres, I suggest you begin a new section on the talk page, state which genres would be removed under your proposal (ex. rescue opera and opera seria), and await some sort of consensus.

I'm sorry to hear you found my message "threatening." I really am hoping that we'll come to an agreement without any unpleasant things happening, but that's a little dependent on you not repeatedly removing sourced content.

And finally, please assume good faith when dealing with other users. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another reversion by Roscelese. That's not WP:BRD. That's Wikipedia:Edit warring. I don't edit war so I will not be reverting myself. --Kleinzach 03:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Try reading the policy you linked. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Historical nature of this list

Now we have had a month's cooling off period, I have restored the passage in the 'Definitions' section explaining that this is a list of historically authentic terms. This is vital because it is the basic principle on which the whole list is based. It's not a compendium of random opera subjects. It's a list of the designations that composers gave their own works. Accordingly I've removed 'Rescue Opera' from the list. This may be an interesting topic worthy of an article, but it is not 'historical' as such (as noted by Grove etc.). I hope the integrity of this article will now be respected. --Kleinzach 00:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Radio operas

Is there a reason why this is plural when everything else (AFAICS) is singular? And an earlier first known example is Geoffrey Toye's The Red Pen (1927). --GuillaumeTell 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've made the corrections. The Red Pen isn't mentioned in the Radio article in Grove - I'm assuming it really was written for the radio. --Kleinzach 10:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The article on Toye (by Arthur Jacobs) in Grove Opera says "His own works include an operetta, The Red Pen (words by A. P. Herbert), broadcast in 1927." The implication seems to be that it wasn't staged, otherwise surely a stage premiere would have been mentioned. And anyway, there was an earlier broadcast in 1925, as you've spotted. --GuillaumeTell 15:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. We could ask Tim riley to add a suitable quote from The Times to The Red Pen, since the refs were added by him. --GuillaumeTell 15:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

We need something more substantial than a newspaper quote - if we can get it. It would also be a good idea to do an article on Radio opera - it's obviously a worthwhile topic as well as being a bona fide genre. --Kleinzach 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd have assumed that a quote from The Thunderer (as it once was) would be perfectly acceptable. As for an article on Radio opera, I agree. There's a whole lot of stuff (derived from a WP search) languishing in my sandbox which I haven't done anything about. Maybe next week? --GuillaumeTell 23:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, a newspaper would be unlikely to announce ""Hello, this was the world's first radio opera" or words to that effect, whereas Joe Bloggstein in his monumental History of Early 20th Century Opera might give us the information. Good luck with the article. --Kleinzach 00:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if the newspaper confirms that the opera was first given, on the radio, in 1925, it becomes "the first known example" (until another turns up), doesn't it? --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't because of the distinction between opera on the radio and opera for the radio. We are talking about a genre here. Opera on the radio seems to date back to an attempt to broadcast from the Met in 1910. Madame Butterfly was broadcast from Berlin in 1921. --Kleinzach 00:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't spot the commas. "first given, on the radio, in 1925" doesn't mean "first given on the radio in 1925". It means that its first performance was on the radio in 1925. --GuillaumeTell 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. This seems to be becoming an advanced course in semantics. Anyway I did rather assume "that its first performance was on the radio in 1925" hence the entry. I'd still be interested to know more about what is obviously a very obscure work. --Kleinzach 11:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As requested by Guillaume T, I've had a rummage for info on The Red Pen which I've added at the talk page of that article. Tangentially, if you are interested in the history of broadcast opera, beware of Harold Rosenthal's statement in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera that the BNOC gave "the first broadcast in Europe of a complete opera" from "the company's matinée performance of Hänsel und Gretel at Covent Garden on 6 January 1923", because (i) this conflicts with the Times and Guardian listings and reports at the time (The Times, 9 January 1923, p. 8 and The Manchester Guardian, 10 January 1923, p. 10) and (ii) the BBC daily broadcasts did not begin until 5.00 p.m, ("Broadcasting. Week-End Programmes", The Times, 6 January 1923, p. 6) – too late for a relay of the matinée of Hansel and Gretel, which started at 2.30. — Tim riley (talk) 09:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply on talk page of that article. I don't think there's any problem leaving the entry as it is here, with The Red Pen as the earliest radio opera, at least until another candidate appears. --Kleinzach 09:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith editing issues

Roscelese's accusation of "hounding" and harassment against me is only an excuse for her own poor behavior, especially the edit warring (against both me and Kleinzach). I'd advise her to stick to discussing opera here and keep other issues and personality clashes off this talk page. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We're all still waiting for you to make an argument that has to do with opera, instead of with me and my edits to other articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It was you who dragged in other, unrelated issues, not me. The fact that you were edit warring is a good enough reason in itself to revert you. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that will be a very convincing argument when someone with less patience than I gets fed up with your harassment and reports you to ANI. Now, if you don't actually have anything to say about the topic, please don't waste anyone else's time here. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks like that will get you blocked. If you want to be blocked, then go ahead and keep them up. And remember that you have no excuse for edit warring. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia editing should be a collaboration based on the assumption of good faith. Repeatedly reverting other editors and attacking them in edit summaries is bad. Time and again I've seen good editors leave WP because of this behaviour. The general decline of the WP:CM projects over the past couple of years has been due to this problem. Wiki-addiction is almost always involved in these situations. Editors know when they are becoming obsessed with personal quarrels. What they need to do is take a break for a couple of days to get things in perspective. --Kleinzach 01:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should try to keep the discussion focused on the sources and the issues as much as possible. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical nature of this list

As already explained in the archives here, this is a list of historical terms. This should be respected. Changing the definition of the contents of the article makes nonsense of all the work that has gone into compiling it. Like many other opera lists such as the List of important operas or List of major opera composers, this can only continue to be useful to the reader if its purpose and definition remain clear. Moreover it's simply wrong to remove relevant cited information from the introduction. That shouldn't happen under any circumstances. --Kleinzach 10:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

So why didn't you remove opera seria? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

To further elaborate:

1. Besides being inconsistent, your criteria are arbitrary.
2. And they are your criteria. You've got a serious problem with ownership of this article; it's very nice that you've done so much work on it, but if you want to enforce your own version on everyone else, Wikipedia is not the place to be publishing.
3. How ironic that you're complaining about me removing "relevant cited information" (ie. one guy's opinion) from the introduction while you are at the same time removing relevant cited information from the body. Scholars describe it as a genre. That is enough.
4. You claim that adding this genre makes the list useless to the reader, but that's a very silly claim, because quite the opposite is true: suppressing genres because of the opinion of one writer (or really, because of the opinion of one editor) makes Wikipedia a less useful and trustworthy reference. In Rescue opera, we can go into detail about scholars' thoughts on its coherency as a genre, but the list structure of this article is not set up to deal with competing theories: Charlton's opinion that everyone else is wrong has no place here, and certainly not pride of place.
5. "As already explained..." - that's rich. You pretend that there was some kind of consensus which I'm violating, when the talk archive you link consists of you, you, and more you; indeed, when Talk:Rescue opera contains more users supports its description as a genre.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with Kleinzach, and have reverted Roscelese. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Stuff and nonsense; you stalked me to this article for the purpose of reverting me because you disagreed with my edits elsewhere. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see an editor making personal ad hominem attacks rather than addressing what should be our focus — to improve the articles. This article is well-referenced. Regarding opera seria the change of usage from dramma per musica to opera seria is explained in the various articles. Opera seria is a historical genre, the term was used by composers. It would be appreciated if these details could be checked before going ballistic. --Kleinzach 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

CP isn't here because he knows or cares about opera, he's here because he disagreed with my edits to Robert P. George and decided he'd follow me around. If he wants to make an argument, he's welcome to, but defending harassers and pretending that harassment is legitimate and accepted user conduct won't make your argument look any better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That begs the question why Roscelese is here. --Kleinzach 06:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because after a discussion of whether or not rescue opera is a genre, it might occur to one to see if Wikipedia lists it in its list of opera genres. Also, [5]. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Harvard Dictionary of Music (2003, 4th ed., p. 719) has an entry titled "Rescue opera". In the entry there is a sentence which reads: "The genre was popular in France in the decade between the fall of the monarchy and the rise of Napoleon." Surely we have to consider this to be a verifiable and reliable source. Although David Charlton strongly argues that "rescue opera" is not a legitimate genre, he did so in 1992. Apparently his argument was insufficient to keep the editor of the Harvard dictionary from including it as a genre in 2003. (I feel it would be difficult to argue that that editor of the Harvard dictionary was unaware of Charlton's article.) Since recognized experts in the field seem to disagree on this, can we really exclude it from this list? I suggest allowing "rescue opera" to be added, but keeping the quote from Charlton's article as a footnote attached to it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's agreed that 'rescue opera' has been used as an opera term in the general literature and it's appropriate to have a WP article on the subject. No argument about that. (It's unfortunate that my references were removed from that WP article, but then I am not here to edit war.) The criteria for this list here are strict historical ones — if they are relaxed then we will no longer have a viable, coherent approach to opera genres, just a mish-mash. In this case it's been established that 'rescue opera' is not a historical term. (Roscelese has admitted this in previous discussions).

No-one has produced any evidence contra Charlton, the recognized expert on the subject — his view has been followed by all the other contributors to the The New Grove Dictionary of Opera in the various articles on Beethoven's Fidelio etc. So it's completely wrong to say that "recognized experts in the field seem to disagree on this". If anyone can find an article on the subject demonstrating conclusively that a major composer called one of their works a 'rescue opera' (in any language), then please go ahead and give a full references — that means, book/paper, author, page numbers and a full non-selective quotation. --Kleinzach 06:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Pretending that no one has produced any sources is not the same thing as no one actually having produced any sources. Charlton does not trump every other source. Try again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(It's also simply false that your Charlton references do not appear in Rescue opera, so take that our of your litany of woe, please. It was removed from the lead, because one scholar's opinion which is rejected by the discipline at large is an inappropriate basis upon which to make sweeping claims in the lead. Making false claims about other users' edits is also an ineffective way of making yourself look good.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that the Harvard dictionary believes that genres can be discerned with hindsight and does not agree with Charlton's restrictive requirement of contemporary historical usage. It lists Fidelio as the best-known example of the genre. Whether Beethoven called it that does not seem to be relevant. Disagreement among expert sources is not uncommon. I don't see how we can arbitrarily decide that one is more correct than the other. We should just take note of the differences in opinion. I think this would be a better approach. Otherwise, we may need to change the article title to List of opera genres according to David Charlton. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not David Charlton, it's according to Grove — The New Grove Dictionary of Opera. --Kleinzach 00:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Drat! I see I left out a very important "not" in my edit summary. Too bad these cannot be edited, as that is so misleading! --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a twisted argument. Genres can of course be defined in any way you like. This page relies on a particular definition of opera genres — in this case the orthodox one used by Grove — in order to be coherent and relevant. Charlton's article — which does not put forward any kind of exceptional or unique view on the origin of the term 'rescue opera' — is simply the orthodox view followed by Grove. If you look at the long Grove Fidelio article in Grove by Douglas Johnson, you will see that it is described as an 'opera'. The words 'rescue opera' do not appear in the article. Likewise the Grove article on Cherubini's Lodoïska by Stephen Willis. If Robert.Allen seriously believes there is a body of expert opinion that disagrees with the Grove view, then he should put up the evidence for its existence. --Kleinzach 00:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I can only report what the Harvard dictionary says. If you think what it says is twisted, I suggest you contact the publisher. Perhaps you can convince them to remove the word "genre" from the entry. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give the full quotations that you have found? I've just checked the The Harvard Dictionary of Music which refers to 'rescue opera' as "a category of opera comique". If there is a passage that says something else then quote it. We need the real Harvard here, not Harvard interpreted by Robert Allen.--Kleinzach 23:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to imply that the entry does not have the sentence I quoted above that refers to "rescue opera" as a "genre". Obviously I quoted that sentence because it refers to "genre" and was relevant. According to the OED "genre" is "a particular style or category of works of art", so using both the words "category" and "genre" in the same entry is not incorrect or contradictory, and helps make the meaning more clear by including two different terms for the same thing. (I'm referring to The Harvard Dictionary of Music, 4th edition, 2003, cited above.) Are you now raising the issue that "rescue opera" is a sub-genre of opéra comique? No one would deny that. Taruskin as well as Peer and Hoeveler say as much (see links in my previous comment below). When we add "rescue opera" to the list in this article, we should say as much. The list already includes other sub-genres, so this would not be unusual. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Richard Taruskin, although he complains about the term, also refers to "rescue opera" as a genre (Music in the Nineteenth Century 2010, pp. 2–3). He says that Grétry's "Richard Coeur-de-Lion ('Richard the Lionhearted,' 1782) launched the genre...." With regard to "rescue opera", this article currently presents only a single point of view and clearly needs more balance. --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again Rescue opera is a legitimate enough term since it exists in opera books. That's not the point. Someone calls it a genre? So what? A list in an encyclopedia has to follow a clear definition. That is why these lists have introductions explaining scope and purpose. If you delete the introduction (or a significant part of it, as Roscelese attempted) you end up with something that is worthless. --Kleinzach 23:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Some problems with the introduction to this article

The introduction to this article wants to impose a definitional purity on a topic that by its very nature is impure, imprecise, and, yes, a "hodgepodge". Few of the statements made in the introduction are sourced. For example, one statement in particular is especially problematical: "In the case of doubt the only authority is, ultimately, the composer himself." Not only is this not sourced, but it appears to be an attempt to limit the content to "production history" at the expense of "reception history". It may be helpful to read Richard Taruskin's "Introduction: The History of What?" to The Oxford History of Western Music, especially his discussion of the importance of "reception history" in the section leading up to p. XVII (also available online here). The result has been to exclude so-called "unhistorical" operatic genres which are perceived to be problematical even when they are well established in the musicological literature, a recent example being the reversion of one editor's addition of "rescue opera", a genre which is referred to and discussed by numerous authors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 10:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Creating definitional criteria out of whole cloth might be appropriate in original work, but not in a Wikipedia article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's nonsense to 'source' the definition of a list. Some Wikipedians seem to suffer from 'sourcitis' - the attempt to try to turn the encyclopedia into a giant legal textbook. Sources are not appropriate for the explanation of the terms of reference of the article, since they are self-evident and relate to the contents of the article (which are referenced where necessary). --Kleinzach 03:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Rescue opera

Bona fide readers of the arguments here and above, may note the editing history of Rescue opera. Here is the original version (with Grove citation with nowiki tags):

A rescue opera was a popular subject of opera in the early 19th century, though the term is not historical.<ref>*Charlton, David (1992), 'Rescue opera' in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera</ref> Generally, rescue operas dealt with the rescue of a main character from some sort of danger leading to a happy dramatic resolution, similar to the deus ex machina plots of opera seria. Operas with this kind of subject matter became popular in France before and during the time of the French Revolution, and a number of such operas dealt with the rescue of a political prisoner. Stylistically and thematically, they were influenced by the French opéra comique, particular the early works with libretti by Michel-Jean Sedaine, and in turn influenced German Romantic opera and French grand opera.

Here is the current version, after the citation was removed, and the level of the article — sadly, like so many others now — reduced.

Rescue opera was a popular genre of opera in the late 18th and early 19th century. Generally, rescue operas deal with the rescue of a main character from danger and end with a happy dramatic resolution in which lofty humanistic ideals triumph over base motives. Operas with this kind of subject matter became popular in France at around the time of the French Revolution, and a number of such operas dealt with the rescue of a political prisoner. Stylistically and thematically, they were influenced by the French opéra comique, and in turn influenced German Romantic opera and French grand opera. The most famous rescue opera is Ludwig van Beethoven's Fidelio.

Note that the first sentence of the new lead ( . . . was a popular genre of opera in the late 18th and early 19th century) directly contradicts the statement further down (" "Rescue opera" was not a contemporary term." '). --Kleinzach 01:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kleinzach, Wouldn't it be better to put this on the talk page of that article? --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No, because the Rescue opera article has been used to reference the debate here. That article has been repeatedly war-edited to marginalise the orthodox views expressed consistently in the relevant articles in Grove. --Kleinzach 00:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Make up your mind - either minority views as well as majority need to be expressed to prevent marginalization, or generally accepted scholarship should be reflected in the article. Either one of those results in rescue opera being included, so it doesn't really matter which one you pick, but "the Grove view is so oppressed that it trumps the body of scholarship that contradicts it" is nonsensical. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an orthodox view on this issue. Reliable sources have different views on it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC) it.

Grove and Oxford on 'rescue opera'

Rescue opera is an unhistorical term of limited usefulness. It is not an authentic genre like 'opera buffa', and was coined only in the late 19th or early 20th century. In origin it has been traced to German criticism, as part of the tendency to label musical phenomenon in a single word . . . The very vagueness of the term's pedigree has, in part, the obvious result that no two published definitions of 'rescue opera' in English will be found to agree, and no one definition will satisfactorily cover the range of operas that are called as evidence of a 'rescue' tendency in the later 18th century. This is because to take the concept 'rescue' as a cardinal criterion is false to dramatic history. In the broadest sense, a 'rescue' is a form of happy dramatic resolution, or turn of events, that can be related to the deus ex machina of classical opera seria. (Significantly no one has proposed a category of deus ex machina operas.)

David Charlton (1992), 'Rescue opera' in The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, ed. Stanley Sadie

That is Grove and here is the entry from Oxford:

Rescue opera. Type of opera, or opéra comique, popular in France after the revolution, which the hero or heroine is saved from some dire fate by human heroism.

Michael Kennedy (1992), The Oxford Dictionary of Music

Stanley Sadie, the editor of The New Grove Dictionary of Opera, David Charlton and other contributors presented a consistent view on this issue, not only in the 'Rescue opera' article, but in all the other related pieces. Grove is of course the main reference for opera articles. Not only is it the most substantial work in English, but it also employed all the leading opera scholars.

Now, can Robert.Allen please explain any contra-Grove position taken by scholars, either before or after the last edition of that encyclopedia? If there is any new research, any new information that has emerged about 'rescue opera'? If so, please tell us about it. We need straightforward references, page number and above all substantial quotations (as given above), if the works are obscure or not available for reading online in Google books. No more dissembling qualifications — "apparently", "seems to be", "appears to be" — just the real, unobfuscated information. (And please no out-of-context, Google-trawled, half quotations juxtaposing 'rescue opera' with the word 'genre'.) Thank you. --Kleinzach 00:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in responding to you if you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la" every time someone presents you with a source you disagree with. You've already seen the sources that describe rescue opera as a genre and explain that it has artistic coherence; why should Robert waste his time finding sources for you that you're going to ignore? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I tried to misrepresent Taruskin's take on it. I happen to own his book, along with The Harvard Dictionary of Music. Both of these were published after Charlton's 1989 and 1992 articles in which he redefines the term. Charlton's articles are interesting, and I don't suggest ignoring them. It's just that they represent a revisionist viewpoint rather than an orthodox one, and not all subsequent authors have accepted his rejection of "rescue opera" as a genre. Taruskin gives a nod to Charlton's objections when he discusses Bouilly's 1798 libretto: "The libretto exemplified a genre that became something of a craze after the French revolution. Modern scholars have christened it the 'rescue opera,' a loose, anachronistic term that covers many situations. In general, though, French operas comiques (operas with spoken dialogue and happy endings) in the decades surrounding the Revolution symbolized the theme of social emancipation in stories that portrayed an unjust abduction or imprisonment (usually at the hands of a tyrant) and a liberation, usually as the result of sacrifice—by lover, spouse, or servant, but in any case by a 'common person' whose virtue is contrasted with the depravity of the tyrant." Taruskin is a careful writer. He is not using the term "genre" carelessly. In the very next sentence he says Grétry's opera "launched the genre", and goes on to list five more examples (I don't think I need to type them all in.) Following Kleinzach's suggestion I did a bit of "trawling" on Google to try to find something one can read online. Here's an interesting one, which reviews Charlton's ideas in a one paragraph, but then in the very next paragraph we read: "Most musicologists agree that Michel-Jean Sedaine (1719–97) was the founder of the rescue opera melodrama. They cite his very successful Richard coeur-de-lion (1784) as the originator of the genre." Here's the link: [6]. How can we read something like this and then say that Charlton's views are considered orthodox? I was also able to find a Google preview of the Taruskin book where one can read what he wrote in context. [7] I hope these links are helpful. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's another Oxford source: Warrack and West, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera 1992, p. 394: rescue opera (Fr. pièce à sauvetage, also in It. usage; Ger., Rettungsoper or Schreckensoper). The name given to an opera in which an essential part of the plot turns on the rescue of a hero or heroine from prison or some other threatening situation. Examples are to be found at various times in the 18th cent., but it developed into an identifiable genre with the French Revolution and the close involvement of opera with real-life situations, often highly dramatic." etc. (I'm tired of typing, but you get the idea.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. These references don't challenge Charlton et al in Grove. No one claims the term is historical. They are in line with my points as explained above. --Kleinzach 03:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should they? This is your own personal criterion, which no one else supports. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring problem

More edit warring going on here [8]. The reversion is against the definition of this article and reliable sources which show rescue opera is an unhistorical term.

I am disgusted that the content of the article should be compromised by a personal vendetta (as illustrated by the many examples of rudeness from one individual on this page) that originated on unrelated operetta pages. I don't edit war so I will not revert. To anyone who sees this notice. I am not the owner of this article, I just happened to spend a lot of my time writing and referencing the content. I am removing my name as maintainer of this article. --Kleinzach 03:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Very cute. You don't edit war so you won't revert...which is exactly why you pop back in every few months and remove the content again. Are you hoping that people aren't watching the article anymore? I hope not. I'm pleased that you've realized your WP:OWNership behavior is wrong, though. A break from this article might help you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dramma Giocoso

The 'Dramma Giocoso' section of the operas lists three operas as 'major works': La scuola de' gelosi (1778), La vera costanza (1779), Il viaggio a Reims (1825). There is no mention of Don Giovanni, which is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, more famous and influential than these. It's true that Don Giovanni is called a 'dramma giocoso' in the references at the end of the article, but I believe that that is irrelevant. Many people do not read footnotes, and in any case, I think that it makes no sense to put important material in the footnotes, so as to remove it from the main text. I'd like to know the reasoning behind doing it this way. –Marieblasdell 02:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice it was in a footnote. I agree that it should be mentioned in the main table; we can say that WAM called it an opera buffa and that Da Ponte called it a dramma giocoso. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing

no Phillip Glass opera or Robert Ashley's TV operas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.125 (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)