Jump to content

Talk:Tosca/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Article expansion

During the next few weeks this article will undergo significant reconstruction and expansion. The objective is to achieve featured status for an article representing one of the most popular operas in the repertory; the article attracts on average 30,000 readers a month. The effort will be spearheaded by users Brianboulton and Wehwalt, but any suggestions or contributions will be welcomed. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great! Much needed. Markhh (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Still reading books and finishing up my last article, but I'm hopeful of beginning work on the first few sections by the end of the week. Help eagerly welcomed, as Brianboulton says.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
yes indeed. I shall be working on the plot summary and am preparing a list of scenes and major numbers. I will also be developing the musical analysis. Should definitely have something to show in a day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Performance history

Suggest that this section, as it stands right now, has become a dizzying array of dates and place names which will be very hard for a reader to get through. Respectfully suggest that if all of these many premieres are to be retained that they might be better viewed as a list or table, rather than in these paragraphs. Best Markhh (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That is fine by me. Tables aren't really my forte though and I think another editor would need to do that. I'll leave it to someone else. I've pulled the content mainly from the almanac at http://www.amadeusonline.net and from http://opera.stanford.edu/Puccini/Tosca/history.html. Some of the theatres/opera companies have websites with performance archives which are also useful.4meter4 (talk) 03:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
If performance history is presented as a table, the article will risk becoming nothing but tables. Using the models of existing opera featured articles, prose must be paramount. The performance history section can be edited to a reasonable size by the removal of overdetailing. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I personally prefer prose as well. It allows for greater comment on performers and audience responses, etc. I realized when I worked on the performance history today that it would be revised considerably later. I was just trying to compile some more pertinent facts to help get the process going. I'm not planning on doing anything more at this point on the article. I really don't have access to the best sources for this particular opera. The ones I used are ok... but something with a bit more scholarly authority would be preferable in sourcing the performance history.4meter4 (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think prose should be paramount. There's no reason to add yet another clunky table. Prose also allows for proper commentary where appropriate, as well as constructing a narrative of its performance history. If a lot of detail is eventually garnered, a future page might be in table form: Tosca performance record or some such. But please no more tables in this article. Voceditenore (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with all. Prose is far more meaningful and flexible. A table will be appendix-like.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Work in progress

As a number of editors are co-operating in this article's expansion, I think there should be some understanding of a strategy. In particular we need clarification of who is doing what; it would be counterproductive if editors are simultaneously developing the same areas. I am currently working to reduce the currently overblown (1,600 word) plot summary, and will then be expanding the musical analysis section. Later I propose to tackle recording history (250 recordings and counting). As I tend to work in sandboxes, the fruits of my labours are slow to appear. It would be useful to know what other editors are proposing to do. Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if anyone else is working on anything, I suspect not, but I'm trying to track operas such as L'incoronazione di Poppea, which of course you wrote and which is a FA, so I wrote historical context and composition, which as we know far more about Tosca's composition, came out rather longer than Poppea. I tend to write long and then cut some in the polishing process. I next propose to do a "Reception and performance history", though we may want to rename it because I don't think there's much to say about later times, Tosca has been continuously performed and very popular since its inception, so the bulk will be on the first night and early performance history and reviews. After that, I intended to poke around and see what needed adding. We need to say something about verismo, but I wasn't sure if you were going to cover that in musical analysis, or if perhaps that should be added early on. With three major characters, I am not sure we need a roles section, but one can be easily added. I am treating Poppea as a guide, rather than a straitjacket, because Tosca is far more recent, is rather better known (I have never seen Poppea) and has never needed to be "rediscovered". I also plan to search for images and look over your part of the job, because the Budden book, contains a fair amount of musical analysis. If we're missing anything, we can easily supply it I think. I'm also waiting for one ref which will not arrive until at least Monday, the book Tosca's Prism.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not proposing to do any work on this article (I am not a great fan of this opera), but I'm keeping an eye on what's happening from time to time. I'm particularly concerned by the table entitled "List of musical items", which might be appropriate for an opera seria or a "number opera" but seems much less so for a more fluid work such as this; also:
  • I'm dubious about the table format, which seems overblown
  • It duplicates information currently in the synopsis (which, I agree, needs attention - but that is where information about arias and suchlike needs to be)
A couple of other points: IMO, the table of roles and synopsis need to be much nearer the top of the article. I'd also be in favour of spinning off the Composition section into a separate article and putting Performance History after the synopsis. The actual opera seems rather swamped by all this stuff.
Anyway, feel free to ignore everything I say, but good luck with the enterprise. I'll be happy to participate in a peer review (or whatever) when you're ready. --GuillaumeTell 16:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll speak only to the composition. Yes, I could expand it some, but I doubt if I could make an article about it. I could cut it some too, but I would hate to cut out things like the "mad Tosca" ending, which will probably be intensely interesting to the reader. We're still early days of construction, why not wait and see how it works out? --Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not planning any work either, apart from comments on the talk page and when it's pretty much in its final state, proof-reading for typos. Apropos of which, I would suggest that editors (outside the two principal ones working on this) not make lots of minor changes/corrections at this stage while it's still in a state of flux.

a. It's liable to be wasted effort

b. It can cause edit-conflicts which slow things down considerably.

Better to "tweak" once the article is in pretty much its final form, IMO. Voceditenore (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Brianboulton and myself are working in sandboxes, but there's still a lot of tweaking that goes on, so if you see we've edited within the last half hour or so, I'd ask people to wait a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: The title "Musical items" seems awkward to me. Have you considered perhaps "scenes" instead of "items" or another term? "Numbers" seems too specific for these lengthy sections. Best, Markhh (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical numbers table

I'm starting a separate section on this, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle. I agree with GuillaumeTell's comments above. I don't think it's at all appropropriate for a work of this type, is visually obtrusive, and is not particularly helpful to the reader. In fact it's confusing and overly detailed - it's practically a reproduction of the libretto. I am in favour of a separate list of notable arias/duets/etc., although I know the OP guidelines recommend against this if they are already included (as they should be) in the synopsis. However, an additional separate list can be helpful to the reader, rather than having to plow through the synopsis and musical analysis sections to find them. By the way, is the table complete? I notice that it doesn't list "Vissi d'arte" in the notable arias column, and this is one of the most famous soprano arias in opera, not just in Tosca. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! scratch that last bit, I found "Vissi d'arte". But perhaps if quote marks were used for the aria names, it would be clearer.Voceditenore (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I take your point, though I think to claim that the table is "practically a reproduction of the libretto" is something of an overstatement. Also, the table is at the end of the article, so it hardly intrudes on the text. Similarly detailed tables are included in L'incoronazione di Poppea and Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria—not exactly "numbers" operas— without comment at their recent FACs. That doesn't of itself justify having the table here, or in this format. But, as you say, an separate list can be helpful, and also avoids the problem of having to mention every significant number in the synopsis. Perhaps this table is overdetailed; I will work on a simpler format, and see if that better suits the circumstances. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
A simpler format might be better, but it's up to you. And you're right, if it's at the very end, it's not intrusive, but at the moment it comes before a section that I presume will be a recording history not simply a link to Tosca discography. I'm just a little concerned that for readers who don't know the opera, it gives the impression that its structure is more 'discrete' than it actually is, and might lead to an unintended conflation in the reader's mind of 'scenes' and their opening lines (often just recitative), with 'numbers'. For example it might imply (to someone who doesn't know the opera) that Angelotti's stuff in Act 1 Scene 1 is a traditional aria, just not a notable one. I'd also consider the Te Deum a notable musical 'piece' (for want of a better word) in Act 1 but it doesn't get a mention in the table. Anyhow, as GuillaumeTell says, feel free to take it all with a grain of salt. ;-) Voceditenore (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have simplified the format to a list of arias and set numbers - better, I agree. Please indicate if you think I have left out anything significant; there are one or two, e.g. Tosca's Ed io venivo, which might qualify. Likewise, I was a bit dubious about including Vittoria! Vittoria!, but I put it in. As to the table's location, my intention was to put it after all text, i.e. after the (as yet unwritten) recording history. But maybe it should be left where it is, adjacent to the Music section? Any thoughts on that? Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This looks fine now. I know what you mean about "Vittoria", but on balance I think I'd leave it in. Now that the table is simplified, there's a good argument for leaving it where it is, followed by Recording history. I suspect that articles on really well-known operas, often attract readers who are looking for something specific, rather than a complete read-through, e.g. the synopsis, role table, musical numbers, and they can get there in one click from the TOC. Voceditenore (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Voceditenore, especially since Vittoria is mentioned in the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree too, but can I raise another point: the table divides the acts into scenes. Now, none of the booklets for the three recordings that I have does so, nor do the synopses in Grove, Viking nor good old Gustave Kobbé himself, and there's no sign of the scenes in Osborne. The nearest any of my books gets is Spike Hughes's "Index of Contexts" at the back of his Famous Puccini Operas - but there he doesn't mention scenes but does list "the more familiar individual items" for each opera. (For the record, he lists them in alphabetical order(!) - "E lucevan le stelle", "Mario, Mario", "O dolci mani", "Recondita armonia", "Tre sbirri, una carrozza" and "Vissi d'arte".)
Now, I'm aware that librettists, particularly of bel canto and earlier works often or usually divide acts into "scenes" which start and stop when characters enter or exit, and maybe Puccini's librettists did the same - but those aren't what we mean by scenes nowadays - a scene is when the action changes location or (occasionally) when a period of time elapses but the location is the same. What I'm saying, probably at too great length, is that the information that e.g. Act 1 is divided into IX or more "scenes" (only 3 of which contain "arias and/or set numbers") is not useful unless all the scenes are referred to in the synopsis and may also lead to questions about what happens in scenes I, II, IV, VI, VII, VIII and why there aren't any arias or set numbers there. And I continue to be dubious about the use of this kind of table for this kind of opera. Sorry about that! --GuillaumeTell 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The "scenes" are as per an old Italian libretto I have, but they don't appear in other librettos I've acquired and I agree they don't have any useful purpose (except to act as a reference aid to anyone who happens to have an old Italian libretto). I have removed all references to scenes. I accept there may be different views on the need for this table, but I remain convinced of its usefulness to the general reader. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, there's no need to have a column for the acts any longer, since there are colspans for them, and wouldn't it be better if the first lines were to the left of the singers, thus?

First lines Performed by
Act 1
Recondita armonia
("Hidden harmony") 		Cavaradossi
Non la sospiri, la nostra casetta
("Do you not long for our little house") 		Tosca, Cavaradossi

... etc. --GuillaumeTell 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Role table

I would strongly recommend that the roles table be kept. This is standard in opera articles, and for a good reason. It allows the reader to see at a glance, not only the voice types for each role, but also the singers who created each role. Many times, singers in minor roles at the premiere went on to develop significant careers. This is one set of information that is better presented in table form rather prose. Also, just because it has three main characters, doesn't make the others, especially Angelotti, the Sacristano, and Spoletta insignificant. Voceditenore (talk) 08:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Performance history and "verismo"

Without giving undue emphasis, notable modern productions should be included, e.g. Jonathan Miller's 1986 controversial (notorious?) updating to the Fascist era and the Zeffirelli production at the ROH specifically created for Maria Callas and in continous use for over 40 years until it was retired in 2006. Possibly also the 1993 televised version where the opera was sung over the exact twenty-four time period in the libretto, in the actual places where the action took place. [1]. Voceditenore (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to work "verismo" into the article, be aware that this is a minefield. The WP article is currently a mess, and misleading. Tosca isn't verismo in the sense of dealing with contemporary lives, usually of the working or peasant classes. However, it uses a style of singing associated with works of this period, regardless of the subject matter. e.g emphatic, declamatory vocal lines, musically similar to speech, emphasis on using the voice to colour the words, high notes used for dramatic emphasis (equivalent to a scream) in the middle of the aria rather than a "showy" climax at the end, and some lines ending up spoken as in the theatre rather than sung, e.g. "Davanti a lui tremava tutta Roma". Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. One could write that, among Puccini's operas, Tosca is the closest to the "verismo" standards for all the reasons you perfectly explained, without saying that it is an opera "verista".
The TV version in the actual places and in the actual hours of the day wasn't anything more than a way to spot the film. My opinion but.... that is :) I'm sure that there are important stage productions, as the one signed by Jonathan Miller. For example, Sylvano Bussotti's and es:Hugo de Ana's.... but I suppose that there are others. Al Pereira(talk) 22:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Images and audio files for Tosca

One thing that nobody has brought up yet is the need for more images and, if possible, more audio files. I am not an expert in copyright laws, so this is not really my area. I know voceditenore has been very helpful with adding images to other articles, and I wonder if she might be willing to do the same here. Of course anyone else willing to pitch in would be great.4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It would be great to get some public domain of (presumably early) Tosca productions. I just added an image of Sardou, but obviously it would be better to have more specifically Tosca-related images. Both Brian and I, through hard experience at FAC, can usually judge copyright status, enough to get by.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a great pic on this web page of Puccini and both librettists together. It would be great if we could use it.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Giacosa died in 1906. The problem is that Italy copyright law per information at Commons is life of the photographer plus 70 years, and the photographer could easily have lived past 1940, 70 years ago.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... perhaps we can hunt down info on the photographer and find out when he/she died. There are some photos of the original cast here: http://www.abmusica.com/tosca.htm4meter4 and sketches here for the originala La Scala production. (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the documentation here, the image was published before 1923 and is therefore out of copyright. It appeared in the French periodical Le Théatre in 1900. There's also this image by Carlo Marcozzi. His birth and death dates are unknown, but he was active 1876-1900 with some photos as early as 1872. [2] Even if he started his career as a photographer at the age of 10, he would be long dead.
Apropos of images and sound files in general, they're very useful, but shouldn't be overdone (there already are sound files for the "biggies" of each act) and the images shouldn't be used simply decoratively. At the moment, they are also very large and causing huge swathes of white space to anyone with a large screen. Frankly, I'd suggest listing potential ones on this talk page and then having Brianboulton and Wehwalt add and format the ones, they think would be most appropriate, especially since Brian has taken many articles to FA and knows the standards they use with respect to images and their placement. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much for hunting down that license. I like all of your suggestions. Should I remove the photos from the article and create a gallery here; or just leave as is?4meter4 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I would leave it as is for now. I think there is a guideline on photographers whose date of death is unknown, but I will have to look for it. Keep in mind that photos have to be public domain in the country where they were taken as well as in the US where the Foundation's servers are. Suggest listing any photos here, and then we can decide what to use. Keep in mind that portraits of people like Illica and Sardou (which i did add, yes) have limited utility because they tell the reader nothing about Tosca. I use them as a last resort.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I have only just caught up with this thread. The question of images was by no means being overlooked, but building an article is a slow and careful business, and so far attention has been minly on the text. I am very grateful to those who have spent time locating these images. However, my experience tells me that, at present, the article has too many images, some of scant relevance to the article. Some of the images are overlarge and intrusive, and overwhelm rather than enhance the text. A cardinal rule is not to add images just because they're available, even if they look pretty, and some pruning is vital if the article is to aspire to FAC. I think the Maria Carolina in the Historical context section is irrelevant to the article and should to be removed; Sardou should be reduced in size; either Illica (likewise reduced) or the libretto cover, but not both, should be kept (I favour the cover, which refers to both librettists). The historic images from the opera are great, but resizing might be necessary. I have yet to check the licencing on any of the additions, but will do so. I have made adjustments to the imaging as per this post; may I ask please that no further images are added without some discussion on this talkpage? Thanks to all. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"O dulci mani" (end of "Adaptation and writing" section) and "O dolce mansuete e pure" ("List of musical items")

Uh, shouldn't both of these at least start "O dolci mani"? It's past my bedtime, so maybe I'm dreaming. --GuillaumeTell 00:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. ;-) I just fixed 'em, a lttle too glaring to leave to the final proof-reading stage. Voceditenore (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we standardise as "O dolci mani". Also, I see that Act III Scene II lists a chorus of soldiers. I see no mention of the same in my libretto. Presumably not the same as the soldiers who form the firing squad, who are supernumeraries? (notoriously so, the "exit with the principals" story about the incompletely briefed firing squad ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Tangentially, I notice that the synopsis has hardly changed since the article was started in February 2002 ([[3]]), though most of the gruesome translations have been improved, and that, unsurprisingly, it is one of those stilted 1921 Leo Melitz things. I hope that whoever is redoing the synopsis (Brian?) will ignore the existing one completely and start from scratch. --GuillaumeTell 17:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Eh? I posted a completely new synopsis on 25 June. My version is not much more than half the length of the earlier one, of which not a word remains in place. Please look again! Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies - I must have been having a brainstorm. I think the reason that I assumed that it was a tweaked version of the Melitz was because all the quotations are in English only. I'd vote for Italian plus English (as in Madama Butterfly) or just Italian (as in Turandot). Anyway, I'll read it through. --GuillaumeTell 10:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you about the translations (It + Eng), will work on this shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Boston premiere

The Met Opera Database lists its first Boston performance of Tosca as April 4, 1901 with the Met premiere cast, Ternina, et al. The listing doesn't say that this was the local Boston premiere, but it seems likely. Best, Markhh (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. The Metropolitan Theatre production with Eames was more likely the first by a resident opera company in the city, but not the Boston premiere.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I made the change. Markhh (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Scotti

Easy for me to suggest when you guys are doing all the work, but have you given any thought to a brief mention of Scotti's long and close identification with the role of Scarpia (similar to discussion of Jeritza) and his near monopoly on it for 30+ years at the Met? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but the article has to be kept to a reasonable length. That means that not all detail can be included. Sometimes separate articles are the best way of incorporating this kind of interesting but tangential infomation. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks! Markhh (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Scotti gets a mention now, in the "Historical performers" section. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Historical context

Would this make more sense moved down just before the plot synopsis, as a sort of preamble to the plot, and start the article with the background to its composition? 140.254.45.27 (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As Brianboulton can tell us in more detail, this was a successful format for the other opera FA's and he went to some effort to argue for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
What Brian argued for, and I fully supported, was a section on the historical context/background of the opera itself, i.e. its place in the history of the genre and the personal history of the composer. The current Historical context section is highly detailed and relates purely to the plot of the opera, and as such is misplaced at the very beginning of the article. Compare what is currently at the start of Tosca with L'incornazione di Poppea and Agrippina. The latter two are a completely different kettle of fish. The one here belongs as a preamble to the synopsis. Voceditenore (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That is fine. Is there a need to write, in addition, a new section? Some of that is already covered in the musical analysis section.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's a need to write a new section. I'd just move the current Historical context to the first sub-section under Synopsis or give it a section of its own immediately preceding the Synopsis. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. Is it short enough now? I cut out a considerable amount of detail, even the Pope leaving Rome.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Recordings

I'm a little puzzled by the wording in this section that seems to equate live performances, which happened to be taped and then were released many years later, with commercial recordings intended for home use. This sentence, for instance: "Plácido Domingo first recorded Cavaradossi in 1966, and thereafter until 1994 he appeared in new recordings almost every year.", seems to give the impression that Domingo was making recordings of Tosca that were released to the public every year. Maybe I'm just being pedantic? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That is easily rephrased unless there are similar equivalences being drawn elsewhere, in which case we can put a sentence in someplace.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The sentence in question is preceded one that says that most of the 70s and 80s recordings were of live performance, but I take the point. I have reworded appropriately, please tweak further if you think this is required. I would however be against adding any more significant material to this section, lest it becomes too long; there is a discography article that could easily be expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
You have to watch about live recordings which were intentionally done and/or later released on reputable labels and those which are in-house or off-air pirates, sold on demand in "plain wrappers" by the following (all of which have highly error-filled information in their catalogues): Charles Handelman's Live Opera, Celestial Audio, Ed Rosen's Premiere Opera (and its earlier version Legato Classics), Live Opera Heaven, House of Opera, Opera Depot and The Opera Lovers. Voceditenore (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have amended the section. After a survey of the 250 entries in the Operadis list I'd say no more than 100 of these are under reputable labels; most of the remainder are either in-house or, more likely, pirated. I've removed mention of the Domingo/Pavarotti version performed for the centenary, because it seems that no official recording was made of this event, though I shall mention it in the revised performance history section I am writing. Brianboulton (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the in-house ones from the above dealers are generally pirates too, made with a concealed tape-recorder during a performance or dress rehearsal. In fact they're worse than the off-air pirates in terms of copyright infringement. Voceditenore (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion to replace the sentence in Recordings which begins, "Callas made several more recordings...":

"Callas re-recorded the opera in 1965 in stereo, and at least seven of her live stage performances have also been preserved."
Please change or ignore if you don't think it's an improvement. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Premieres section

I am very concerned about this section (I have been concentrating on other areas and haven't really looked at it until now). My apologies to its creator, but I'm sure we don't need what is basically an exhaustive listing of dates and places, only a few of which were memorable in the opera's overall history, and most of which can be found simply by using this link. The section is difficult to read, is uncited, and thoroughly breaches the summary style requirement for WP articles. No other opera article has this sort of detailed information. I propose that the section be replaced by one which briefly covers a few significant premieres, and then gives space to some of the other important events in the opera's 100-plus years of performance history; e.g. the impacts of Destinn, Callas, Gigli and other key performers, mention of some recent imaginative productions such as that at La Scala in 1996-97, the real-time televised film with Domingo, the centenary performance with 65-years-old Pavarotti as Cavaradossi. There may well be others, though the section has to be kept to a reasonable length. I will work on this in the next couple of days and see what I can come up with. Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once he posts something to, I will add to it with the references I have which Brian doesn't. And of course everyone's thoughts are welcome, though everything we put in there must have an appropriate reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
No appology necessary. As I stated above, I realized when I created it that it would be altered significantly. Sounds like a good plan on your part.4meter4 (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Please feel free to comment on the revised version, when it appears. Brianboulton (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Roman or Arabic

For the act numbering. Should we do Act II or Act 2?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if we go with "Act 2", do we need nonbreaking spaces? Sandy gave me what for about not having them in the constitutional crisis article, "Section 57" and similar usages.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
In using Arabic numerals for Act numbering I am following Opera Project guidelines - see also L'incoronazione di Poppea, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria, The Bartered Bride, etc. As to nonbreaking spaces, I haven't given them a thought in ages, certainly didn't use 'em in the above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox is not worthy of the article we are all composing here. It seems consistent with other operas, but couldn't it be improved? I'm admiring of the infobox in the Italian article on Tosca, here, I'm not sure it's perfect, but it isn't bad. Or perhaps I'm writing in the wrong place if there is a desire to keep all opera articles consistent this way.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Actually Wehwalt, this article does not have an infobox. It has a list of operas by the composer template. Through much discussion wikiproject opera has prohibited infoboxes on all opera related articles. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Umm... projects can't "prohibit" anything, but yes there has been a pretty strong consensus there that not to use them (as oppposed to navigation template which this one is), and to keep articles on operas fairly uniform with the nav template at the top. There's a similar view expressed by the Theatre Project here, although they do have play infoboxes available. Having said that, I've always felt that what works best for most articles might not necessarily work best for all of them. Disinfoboxes are dreadful, but straightjackets are mighty uncomfortable. ;-) So I don't think we should preclude discussion about the use of one for this article. By the way, when the OP was looking at redesigning the Nav template (they used to be uncollapsed which completely messed up formats in operas by proflific composers like Rossini), we also designed a horizontal one to go at the bottom, although the problem was solved once we made the vertical ones collapsible. There's an example of horizontal template here. Voceditenore (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of the policy.4meter4 (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I won't be so bold as to override a discussion, but still it is something to consider.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

The article has now been nominated at WP:Peer review, in the hopes of generating comments from the wider WP community. To those active on this page, please keep your suggestions and comments coming, either here or on the PR page; they have been very constructive and have done a lot to improve the quality of the article. We look forward to more. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Macbeth of operas"

This might be too fan crufty for some, but Tosca by reputation is often seen as the Macbeth of the opera world. There are many interesting bad luck stories that opera fans love to recount to one another. Some famous ones include the "Bouncing Tosca" of Eva Turner at the Lyric Opera of Chicago (imagine a trampoline and the reappearnce of Tosca above the parapat after she jumped lol), Maria Callas catching her hair on fire at Covent Garden which was put out by her Scarpia, Tito Gobbi, and the collective suicide of the soldiers (who were last minute additions told to 'exit with the principles') who followed Tosca to her death at the San Francisco Opera. In 1995 Fabio Armiliato was shot in the leg during his execution seen as Cavaradossi at the Macerata festival and was sent off to the hospital. He later returned another night using crutches and wearing a cast, only to fall down a flight of stairs during one scene and break his other leg. I've also heard tale of a Cavaradossi being killed for real when someone accidentally used a loaded gun. This might not have a place in an FA article; but it sure is entertaining to read.4meter4 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought about these. First, I think they are beyond the scope of an article that is really intended to be "Tosca 101" Second, I really have my doubts as to the reality status of some of these (especially the bouncing and the exits with the principals ones). And if we include even the more firmly rooted in fact ones (Cavaradossi has been shot, by flying paper wads from the blanks, at least twice) someone will want to include the others. I've read "Famous Operatic Disasters" too; I think they sacrifice all in pursuit of a good story. On balance, while accepting this as part of the legend of Tosca, probably best to leave it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

Is it just me, or does this section seem a little unballanced towards the negative?4meter4 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's intended, but a good bit of the analysis, and also the opening section, seems to lean to the negative. Is it really true that the melodrama more than the music is what has made Tosca popular? Surely it is the magnificent score and romantic arias and duets along with the hair-raising plot and three vividly realized characters that have made the opera such a success. I know it's still a work in progress (a superb one!). No doubt the number of negative quotes and observations have been included to give a fair and complete survey of thought about the piece, but a little judicious editing here and there might erase a more negative tone than I believe was intended. Markhh (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at it. Easy enough to find praise for Tosca. I think the sources are fairly consistent in deeming Tosca a work beloved by the public, but about which the critics and musicologists have mixed feelings. I believe that we are going to nominate the article for peer review today and I guess take it to FAC in about a week, once Brian's current FAC, on some thatched cottage or something, clears the page (I'm holding off on my next FAC so as not to delay this one).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
A charming wee cottage I assure you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of being a pest, may I request that you take another look at the last sentence of the opening section? I don't see how this can be stated as a fact and as a conclusion it leaves a rather dubious impression of the quality of the work, I think. Thanks again, Markhh (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made a change to it, although probably my language could be improved, as well as making other amendments to the lede. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't have the sources at my fingertips, but how about something like this?:
Musically, Tosca is structured as through-composed work, with a continuous lyrical flow rather than an alternation of recitative and set-piece numbers. Puccini uses Wagnerian leitmotifs to identify characters, objects and ideas. While critics have frequently dismissed the opera as a facile melodrama with logical confusions of plot, most have acknowledged the dramatic power of its score and the inventiveness of its orchestration. The finely tuned dramatic force of Tosca, both in its score and its characters has continued to fascinate both performers and audiences and the work remains one of the most frequently performed operas.
Thanks, Markhh (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Generally good, but per WP:WEASEL, I think we should avoid terms like "most" if we can. I also don't like the "fascinate both performers and audiences", there is no great support for that in the body.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I have replaced the third lead paragraph with a slightly toned-down version of the above, which is better than what I wrote originally. I am adding a little to the Critical reception, which does read rather doomy and gloomy and is probably not reflective of the standing in which the opera is widely held.. Give me a day or two, though. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your improvements. Looks great. Markhh (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have added to the Critical reception as promised. It may not look much, but I believe the section fairly reflects the balance of critical opinion and gives due weight to the opera's popularity with the public. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Leading perfomers

I am becoming anxious about this section. I originally intended it to be a brief addendum to the general performance details, but somehow it has grown. The peer reviewers have correctly pointed out that it is illogical to include singers from one era and not from another, and so we get an awful lot of singers jostling for mention. We can't include them all, so how are the choices to be made? We are in danger of creating an ever-expanding section that will grow and grow as editors exercise their rights to add details of singers they believe - possibly rightly - should be included at the expense of others. Maybe I am paranoid, but I see a recipe here for permanent instability.

A possible solution is to cut back the section by restricting it to singers of the title role, and then limiting it to a couple from each era: say Destinn and Jeritza from the first years, Callas and Tebaldi from mid 20thC, and Vaness and Gheorghiu from the modern era. The truncated section could then be merged back into performance history, thus losing the maybe provocative section title. In his OMO article, Budden mentions a few distinguished Tosca performers without providing a shopping list of talent, and I think we can do the same. It is always a pity to lose well-researched material from an article, but I think in this cas it may be necessary. I would be grateful if the watchers of this page can add their thoughts; I won't take action meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

With 2000 opera-related articles on my watch list, I can assure you that these types of sections, whether titled "notable" or "leading", are an absolute pain to maintain (see also). They're spam magnets for singers of very marginal notablity needing a link and for fans of notable ones who feel their favourite has been given short-shrift, e.g. this fellow. You can try to limit this to 2 per era. But determined folk will not obey, alas. One way around this is to leave out that section altogether and incorporate the names in the performance history as you discuss notable productions/performances since its premiere (others can be incorporated in the recording section). For example the Zeffirelli production at the ROH was specifically created for Maria Callas and in continous use for over 40 years until it was retired in 2006 and replaced by the one which premiered with Angela Gheorghiu. Gheorghiu and Alagna's film of Tosca is not a straightforward film of the opera, it's intercut with a drama about singers etc. rehearsing a present-day production. Just a suggestion. Voceditenore (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

PS I wouldn't use the word "notable" (or its variants) in relation to the productions either (a magnet for either spam or POV disputes or both). The references for them will speak for themselves. By the way, have you seen this extraordinary stage set for Tosca at the Bregenzer Festspiele? Not that you should include this one specifically, but another way of getting in productions (and thereby their singers) is to mention ones which have radically altered the setting. Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like voceditenore's way of handling this. In addition, I think a separate article on the performance history of Tosca could easily be created with just a summary on this page. It would cut down on the article size here and hopefully pull the drive by editing away from a featured article. Whatever we do, a popular opera like Tosca is going to draw drive-by edits. Better to just write what is best for the article with the understanding that some future patroling is just part of the nature of wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
A separate article on performance history would be awfully long, though, wouldn't it? Maybe an article entitled something like "Unusual productions of Tosca"? Was Jonathan Miller the first to set the opera in the Mussolini era? And then there's Christopher Alden's production for Opera North, last heard of in Australia, where all the action takes place in a robing-room off the Sacristan's office and the whole thing is a plot by Spoletta and Sciarrone to get rid of Scarpia.

As for drive-by additions of every groupie's favourite singer, how about three spin-off articles entitled "List of singers of the role of Tosca/Cavaradossi/Scarpia"? You could start with the ones currently in the article and all that's needed thereafter is watchlist maintainance of alpha or chronological order and deletion of redlinked or unlinked singers who've been added. My memory of a couple of FAs that I've been involved in is that subsidiary articles are ignored, or merely glanced at, by reviewers, but maybe that isn't always the case?

--GuillaumeTell 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
These comments have been very helpful; take a look and see what I've done. Basically, the "performers" section is no more. A modified version of its content has been merged into a section now neutrally entitled "Later productions", with the focus more on performances than performers. This will not of course quell the determination of some to add a few pennyworth of their own, but it looks less of an open invitation. Let me know what you think. Guillaume's ideas about spin-off articles look excellent, but I don't think I'll be writing them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice job Brian. A possible addition to the section would be that Zeffirelli also designed the 1985 Met production which was in use until the opening gala of the 2009-2010 season when Luc Bondy's controvercial production premiered. See here: [4] and [5].4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Much more satisfactory! I did note one inaccuracy, though. The Jonathan Miller/Mussolini production was originally done in 1986 for the Maggio Musicale Fiorentino in Florence and revived in the 86/87 season at the ENO. It's not a 21st century production, although the ENO may still be using it. There's also a much better reference for this in Girardi. Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

    A general point about Girardi, FA-wise... it might be good to have him in your sources, which this would accomplish. He's a recognized expert on Puccini and at the moment the article is heavily dependent on just two main sources, albeit excellent ones, Budden and Nicassio. Voceditenore (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Thanks. I knew the source was rubbish, but it was all I could come up with late at night. I intended to research the matter fully this morning, and find a better source, but you have done the work for me. Girardi now included. Brianboulton (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing word

I've started reading through the text. The "Securing the rights" para ends with the word "the". I see that "project" followed it until recently, but I hesitate to replace that word as it seems to have been removed deliberately, to be replaced by ????? --GuillaumeTell 17:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

  • You're right. I was worried about the overuse of the word "project" and somehow forgot to put in the alternative. I've now restored that word, but rejigged the rest of the paragraph so it only occurs once. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis Act 3

Should the text indicate that the shepherd is heard offstage or in the distance? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The reader is probably going to understand that few shepherds plied their trade on the ramparts of the Castel Sant'Angelo! I'd let it go, but thanks for bringing that up. Even the Pope usually was a mile or so away and in fact he was not in Rome on 18 June 1800.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Recordings again

Minor tweak: For a more logical sequence, suggest moving the info re the 1995 English language recording to a separate sentence following the final one which discusses recordings in languages other than Italian. Thanks, Markhh (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Images update

After going through the long discussion on the PR page, and the thread on my own talkpage, it seems that the outstanding issues are as follows:-

  • Navbox portrait. Some slight doubts exist about the authorship, and use of the image might be challenged at FAC. If it is, we have an unimpeachable alternative.
  • According to Jappalang, the three theatrical scenes ought to be delisted from Commons until we are absolutely certain of their authorship. I don't know how to remove them from Commons.
  • The Dupont images (DiMarchi and Ternina): The links on the image pages do not go to these images' sources. What is the correct link? In what form were these pictures originally published by the Met?

So far as I can see, all other image questions are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Re de Marchi and Ternina: I didn't upload them, but both links are fixed. Scroll down to the small thumbnails and click for the full image. What is the basis for their PD status? Aimé Dupont died 1900, although the studio continued under his name. The Met premiere was in February 1901. He might have taken the photo in rehearsals before he kicked the bucket. I have no idea if they have been published before 1923, unless they count these fairly mass-produced cabinet cards as publication. Re the 3 stage scenes: I didn't upload the originals, but per the last bit in this thread on your talk page, I can upload larger, clearer versions to English WP. I had already uploaded one of the new versions, File:Tosca Te Deum Act 1.jpg, to the Commons. If you want I can re-load it to English WP, if the Commons folk don't think that the credit in the source as "Boyer" is sufficient to link them to "Paul Boyer" who has been dead for 70 years. Frankly, I'm never uploading anything to Commons again. It's not worth the aggro.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I suffered an internet connection breakdown last night, and went to bed. Aimé died in February 1900, a full year before the Met premiere. Furthermore, the Ternina picture evidently relates to a performance in 1902. I think we can safely say that Aimé himself didn't take these photographs, which are the work of his studio. In which case, claiming PD on the basis of death of author plus 100 years doesn't work. Therefore, unless we can show evidence of publication before 1923, I think these images have to go. I am currently on the lookout for replacements. On the matter of the stage scenes, Jappalang's view is that the equivoval "Boyer" information may present problems in regard to licensing on Commons, but not on Wikipedia. I would be inclined at FAC to defend these images on their WP licences and not reload unless absolutely necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The worst case scenario on these is upload to WP instead of commons. To be honest, it is sometimes helpful to leave a small issue as a "lightning rod" for hypercritical reviewers. Additionally, we do have adequate alternative photographs based on the Victor/Victrola (not Victoria) books, as well as several alternative books at Google books. Even if we had to strike them entirely, the awkwardly posed (by today's standard) images of 1902 performers don't add that much to the article, in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
In my view, we should replace the Dupont pic of De Marchi with the Caruso picture on p. 342 of the Victrola book, and Dupont's Ternina with the Emmy Destinn picture on p. 394 of Victrola. Both are relevant, and have good name recognition. I'd like to see what they look like, anyway. I made a complete horlicks of trying to upload the Destinn pic; would someone a bit more competent care to upload these. to Wikipedia not Commons? I'd be grateful Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I personally feel we should have an image of someone from the original cast in the article.4meter4 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Umm... I believe Aimé Dupont died in 1903 and not 1900.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The only source saying 1903 is self published. See here. Both the NPG and NYPL give 1900. Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be 1900. Someone came on to my talk page when I changed it to 1903 (relying on the self published source) and was slightly polite about it. I think he thought I was a vandal.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Maria Callas & Tosca

She was 16 when she first sang Tosca, not 18 as stated here. Although the date for the performance is correct, your subtraction wasn't.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want a better reference for the Greek performance date, its on pp. 291-293 in this book. I have a copy of it and checked the page numbers myself. Voceditenore (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Um, according to every biography I have seen, Callas was born on 2 December 1923. That means that on the Athens performance date, 27 August 1942, she was 18 years and 269 days old. I think that is correct, unless I'm losing my marbles (a distinct possibility). I'm happy to add the ref you suggest, though personally I think Hamilton's Annals is a great resource, especially for anyone researching Callas's career. While you're here, could I reiterate the request, above, for the uploading of a couple more pictures from the Victrola book: Destinn and Caruso? They should be uploaded to Wikipedia, not Commons. They are safer bets than the Dupont pictures because of the certainty of their publication date (also they have better name recognition). Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Doh! My substraction was wrong. Brain now totally fried from working on La Tosca.:-) Re the pix... I'll do them tomorrow morning around 6 am (my/UK time). Hope that's OK. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested photos

As per the request above, I've now uploaded the following to English Wikipedia, all are published in the US pre-1923.

I did my best to clean them up but, frankly, if I were not already an opera-maniac, all of them (with the exception of the Scotti) would put me off seeing this opera, in fact any opera.;-) They're dreary, and the singers, are well, the stereotypic view many people have of opera singers. I mentioned this before, but perhaps it got lost in the shuffle, please take a look at:

  • Girardi, Michele (ed.), Tosca 1800 1900 2000, Catalogue of the exhibition held at the Museo Nazionale di Villa Guinigi, Lucca, 2-27 February 2000

It has beautiful colour images of Hohenstein's costume designs for the premiere, and he's obviously used the actual singers as his models. (I've used one in La Tosca here, but there are many more of Floria T's costumes, including one with "the knife".) Ditto, Hohenstein's set designs albeit without people. (Hohenstein died in 1928, so no problems with copyright.

Also, you might want to re-consider using this one of the arresting stage set in the Bregenzer Festspiele production [6] in the part about unusual settings. The production is updated to a "Mafia scenario". See this review in the Financial Times. At least it shows that opera is living theatre not a bunch of dead singers dressed in sepia. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: Voceditenore (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant work! Will comment later, duty calls. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Later: This truly is impressive work, for which we are very grateful indeed. I am particularly delighted with the Bregenz image, as I've wanted to include a picture of a modern production, but such as I have are all under copyright. I have added a brief description of this production to the text.
I have added the Caruso and Destinn images, and have used your non-Commons versions of the Te Deum and Scarpia death scenes. I don't wholly accept your depiction of these as repellently dreary, though I agree that three of them close together is rather heavy-handed. I have looked at the Girardi exhibition images and agree that these are colourful and a lot more interesting. The problem is, though, that Hohenstein's death in 1928 is not of itself enough to ensure US public domain, unless we can demonstrate either that the pictures were never published, or were published before 1923. That could put us in the Dupont situation - convinced that the picture is PD but unable to prove it. However, there is one image in the catalogue that we can definitely use: the painting by Camille Corot (1796-1875) of the Castel. This can be licensed without worry as PD-art. I think this could replace the rather wooden execution scene; could you upload it? Brianboulton (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Commons is a complete mystery to me! They have a whole category for Hohenstein. When we uploaded his designs for La bohème to En Wikipedia last year, someone at Commons moved 'em all there, e.g. [7]. Ah well.... Voceditenore (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Anyhow, here's your Corot: File:Castel Sant'Angelo by Corot.jpg. I uploaded it at Commons despite vowing I'd never upload anything there again. Observe the license Commons automatically applied from the drop-down menu when I said it was PD Art because of its age: "author's life + 70 years". Geesh! I wish they'd get their act together;-)- Voceditenore (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again; see how fine the Corot looks in the article. I think the problem with Commons is that it's a wiki; anyone can upload a pic there, and most people haven't much idea of the complexities of copyright law. Nevertheless, many Wikipedia editors (including me in my earlier days) think that, if it's on Commons, it must be OK. However, licencing usually only gets checked out when articles containing Commons images come up as featured article candidates. FAC policy can be extremely strict, though here are policy guidelines spelling out the do's and don'ts. I never upload to Commons, and only to Wikipedia if I am dead certain that it is US-PD. Brianboulton (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
While the Corot is a fine picture, this might convey better to the reader Tosca's fate. I do post to Commons, more or less out of habit, but have had poor experiences there. Like six month image for deletion debates (well, total of about ten comments).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer the Corot with its period quality; the photograph, while excellent, has modern features which distract somewhat. It depends how strongly you feel. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not enough to insist. When do we go to FAC?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Editions and amendments

This section seems a little bit like an orphan down there at the end. Wondering if it would be more useful as a subsection of either "Composition" or "Music"? Just a thought. Markhh (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe put it after Subsequent performances?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Best left where it is, I feel. It's not the most interesting info for the general reader, and sticking it in the middle would be rather intrusive. Brianboulton (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

FAC nomination

The article is now a candidate at the FAC page, here. Please feel free to add further comments and suggestions there. Brianboulton (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Promoted 18 July. Thanks to all contributors and reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations to Brian and Wehwalt for a huge job well done! Markhh (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate it. Thanks to all the "kibbitzers".--Wehwalt (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

First paragraph wording

"It depicts graphic scenes of torture, murder and suicide, yet it contains some of Puccini's best-known lyrical arias, and has inspired memorable performances from many of opera's leading singers." the 'yet' is a bit confusing--does it mean that good lyrical arias are usually exclusive to more joyful operas? sorry i don't know anything about the topic. 68.125.34.233 (talk) 09:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, “graphic”? This is an opera we are talking about, not a Sam Peckinpah film.
And "depicts scenes of torture, murder and suicide" is a statement of fact, them being "graphic" is surely up to the viewer, and indeed to whoever is staging the production.
I’ve taken it out, otherwise it’ll need a citation, or spark an interminable discussion, or both. Swanny18 (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't get very excited about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tosca/Archive_2&oldid=1190136691"