Talk:Carmen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Work to be done

After Porgy and Bess I believe this should be the next opera FA. After all, it is the most performed opera in the world, so why not? I have started adding the structure, and will be continually adding to it.

Things to do

• A comprehensive description of major recordings
  • Original Production Info Added
  • List of Recordings done
• A clearer and more concise synopsis
• Dramatic Elements
• History
• Musical Elements
  • Influence of Spanish Music on the score
• Images of productions, posters, singers, etc.
  • So far only one picture of Galli-Marié as Carmen.
  • More pictures would be nice.

--Alexs letterbox 07:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Responses of Tchaikovsky, Wagner & Brahms

The first man of genius to recognize Bizet at his true value was undoubtedly Tchaikovsky. A pupil of his, Vladimir Shilovsky, had been present at the first performance of Carmen and immediately sent him the score. In the late autumn of 1875 Tchaikovsky came to Paris with his brother Modeste, Carmen was dragging out a miserable existence at the Opera-Comique and was just on the point of disappearing from the repertory for no fewer than eight years. Modeste Tchaikovsky declares that his brother was in a state of intense nervous excitement after the performance of Carmen. "Peter Ilich has never been so completely carried away by any piece of modern music as by Carmen", he writes. He adds that the news of Bizet's death tended to increase his brother's almost unhealthy passion for the opera. Tchaikovsky's admiration for Bizet steadily grew. Five years later he wrote that Carmen was "a masterpiece in the most complete sense of the word; one of those rare works which will some day most vividly reflect the aspirations of a whole generation. What a wonderful subject!" he adds. "I am convinced that ten years hence Carmen will be the most popular opera in the world." Tchaikovsky's enthusiasm never waned. He never tired of a music that is "so fascinating in its simplicity, so full of vitality, so sincere" that he remembered every note of it. He regarded Bizet as head and shoulders above his French contemporaries. The next man of genius to realize the true significance of Bizet's work was Wagner himself. He was present at a performance of Carmen in Vienna in November 1875. He is credited with the remark, made at the end of the performance : "Thank God, here at last is somebody who has imagination." Hans von Bulow writes : "Wagner and Brahms vied with each other in extolling Bizet's masterpiece". No contemporary opera produced so deep an impression on the ageing composer as Carmen. He regarded it as the starting-point of a renaissance of French dramatic music, revitalized by popular song. It is interesting to note that his favourite piece was the Micaela-Don Josh duet-which is generally regarded as the most conventional number in the whole opera. He delighted in "the fresh naivety" of which he considered perfectly entrancing, and which the pianist Joseph Rubinstein frequently played to him at his request. Even more enthusiastic than Wagner was Brahms. His intense admiration for Carmen was a matter of common knowledge, even before Andrew de Ternant revealed the details of Debussy's visit to the German master. According to Debussy, Brahms regarded Carmen as "undoubtedly the greatest opera produced in Europe since the Franco-Prussian war". He bitterly regretted that he had never met Bizet and declared that "he would have gone to the end of the earth to embrace the composer of Carmen". He rightly deplored the regrettable spirit (redolent of the music-hall) in which Carmen is generally produced and performed. The whole work was inexcusably degraded to the level of a tragical operetta by the habit-so prevalent in every country--of representing Carmen as "the low-bred follower of Spanish soldiers", instead of as "a bewitching, cultured woman of Bizet's own nationality". Brahms subsequently insisted on taking Debussy to a performance of Carmen, and during the intervals delivered "quite a commentary-lecture on the principal numbers". He informed Debussy that he had witnessed no fewer than twenty-one performances, and that his admiration was shared by the Iron Chancellor Bismarck, who had attended no fewer than twenty-seven! These particulars must have been gratifying to the young French musician, whose fervent admiration for Bizet never wavered, despite the depreciatory remarks of the Debussyists.Wayne Leigh 16:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ballet and film

There's at least one filmed ballet version that should be mentioned. --Hugh7 23:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Escamillo: bass or baritone

Is Escamillo a bass? I thought he was a baritone... --Edit--I'm pretty sure he is. Updating page to reflect...

According to the latest EMI recording, he is a baritone. --Alexs letterbox 07:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Evanbro 16:30, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know he is a baritone. He has low notes, but also lots of high notes. It might be bass-baritone.

Soprano or Mezzo?

Carmen

• Shouldn't it be mentioned wether the singers who had the role of Carmen in the recordings are Sopranos or Mezzos?

People can find this out by visiting the particular singer's page. --Alexs letterbox 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• It is mentioned in the article that the role was originally intended for Mezzo, but there are some small notes for singers who can't sing the low notes. Who added them and when?

The person who added them is unimportant, but was probably a low-level employee of the firm that published the vocal score. --Alexs letterbox 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Frasquita & Mercedes

The first version of the opera I saw was the Deutsche Grammophon/Metropolitan Opera DVD (dialogue version) conducted by James Levine with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra and Agnes Baltsa, José Carreras, Leona Mitchell and Samuel Ramey as Carmen, Don José, Micaëla and Escamillo respectively. It's a 1988 version that should be added to the list. If you need more info, just ask.

Now the question. In this version, Frasquita is a soprano (Myra Merritt) and Mercedes is a mezzo (Diane Kesling) and they arranged the score so as to give Merritt all the higher parts and Kesling all the lower parts, so some, if not most of the time Frasquita is singing Mercedes's part and vice-versa. Is that done traditionally or is it just an exception?

--Orpheo 09:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems there ae two vwersions: here http://opera.stanford.edu/Bizet/Carmen/acte3.html, for example, Frasquita sings "Fortune" and Mercedes sings "Amour" (Just before Carmen tries her luck with the cards), but here http://www.aria-database.com/translations/carmen.txt the opposite is true.

It is true that Frasquita and Mercedes often swap their parts, but because the roles are so two-dimensional and similar, I have trouble telling them apart at first whilst experiencing Carmen. I believe this to be an irrelevant minor point. --Alexs letterbox 07:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

El Dancaïro & El Remendado

The article said that Le Dancaïre is a tenor and Le Remendado is a baritone. In the Deutsche Grammophone/Metropolitan Opera version, El Dancaïro is a baritone and El Remendado is a tenor, but in the score they both have a G clef. Tenor or Baritone? --Orpheo 10:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary Book Entry

I have removed the following: Pendragon Press has published a guide to Carmen which includes the complete text translated into English, International Phonetic Alphabet, as well as a translation of the novel by Prosper Mérimée and other literary sources for the libretto. This is Carmen: A Performance Guide by Mary Dibbern with an Introduction by Bizet scholar Lesley A. Wright. ISBN 1-57647-032-6.

There are thousands of guides to operas, and this one does not seem particularly noteworthy. It does not offer a previously lost section of the libretto, discarded music, etc., and therefore does not belong in revisions.

Trivia cleanup

I have removed the following:

Gene Deitch directed Carmen Get It, a Tom and Jerry cartoon, for release in 1962.

The 1976 movie The Bad News Bears, a movie about little league baseball in Southern California, uses Carmen incidental music throughout, primarily the Toréadors song.

In Dance Dance Revolution: Mario Mix, the song "Garden Boogie" is a remix of Carmen.

In the 1988 Winter Olympic Games ladies' figure skating competition, both [[]] and Debi Thomas employed portions of Carmen in their finales, winning gold and bronze medals respectively.

The late-90's-early 2000's Nickelodeon cartoon Hey Arnold! had an episode ("What's Opera, Arnold?") that was based almost entirely on Carmen.

The toreador song was once used as an advertising jingle for STP.

In Clerks: The Animated Series, the fifth episode, in which Dante Hicks coaches little league, has music from Carmen playing in the background during their games and practices.

In the 2006 movie The Benchwarmers, most if not all of the background music is from Carmen.

In Paul Thomas Anderson's 1999 film Magnolia, contestants on a ficional game show are asked to identify the opera based on a line in English. Habanera then plays in the background for several minutes.

If anybody can justify their inclusion in this article (as opposed to in the Clerks: The Animated Series, The Benchwarmers etc. articles), then by all means put them back in. --Alexs letterbox 09:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to get consensus before unilaterally whacking something that you just don't happen to like. Wahkeenah 10:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexs was acting on a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Trivia, where a consensus about trivia sections in opera articles is emerging. Fireplace 11:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. What's more, I don't see the distinction between the items removed and the items kept. It was the ultimate POV edit. Marc Shepherd 11:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed a clear and emerging consensus on removing unimportant, miscellaneous and irrelevant information from opera articles as explained by Fireplace.

I agree with the editing done by Alexs letterbox which was done after discussion with other members of the Opera Project. - Kleinzach 12:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that the editing was perhaps a little rash, but none of this information is encylopedic in any way. Listing every use of the music is even more pointless than listing every production of the opera. I stand by my original statement that the trivia can be put back if justification is provided, because right now, I do not see any. --Alexs letterbox 06:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy on trivia sections of opera articles

The Opera Project now has a policy on trivia sections, which is on the Project page item 10.9. We hope that contributors to this page will respect that policy, which applies to all opera articles. We of course welcome comments and ideas for developing our guidelines. Thank you. - Kleinzach 08:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry

There is this episode in Tom and Jerry where they go to an opera house and Carmen is being played, does any-one think this information should be added to the article?Atomic45 05:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, no. This page should not have a list of minor references or sampling of the work. I look at it this way: Would any serious study of the work mention references in popular culture? --Alexs letterbox 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned on the Tom and Jerry Talk Page as being removed from the original article. I have always been impressed with the way cartoons introduced younger viewers to classical music. If I had never watched T&J (or Debi Thomas in the Winter Olympics) when I was younger, I would have never heard of Carmen. If the Tom and Jerry cartoon in question is not allowed in the Carmen or T&J articles, where should it belong? NBK1122 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, nowhere. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. How is including a reference to all the cartoons that include Classical music going to further appreciation of that music? -- Alexs letterbox (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To many opera fans, references to cartoons, sitcoms (esp. comedy) and video games are insults to the great arts. I am one of them. For that, I 100% support Alexs letterbox - Jay (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I do consider myself an opera enthusiast, however IMHO such "references" should not be considered insults to the great arts unless they're are offensive. I respect your position although do not concur with it. Please note I'm just expressing an idea that I believe is not unique to myself. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wild, Wild Rose

I have added this, but apologies as I haven't managed to see the whole thing and so am leaning on the IMDB page and movies.mov.cv a bit. The characters are correct and I think I have followed the right conventions (ie the full listing of pinyin and traditional characters would is usually on the page devoted to the topic) User:Conflatuman 13:30 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Formula One

The Prelude plays after all Formula One podiums, should be mentioned --201.9.109.152 22:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry about referencing a movie based on this Opera.

I intend to make a brief reference, with an entry either in in the "Films" or "Others" section, to a movie that is entirely based on the opera "Carmen" albeit with a comedy point of view. This film is an argentinian one from 1943, also called "Carmen" [1], and the main actress is the argentinian actress and comedian Nini Marshall [2].
In my opinion, and after reviewing the "trivia policy" related to operas, the reference is relevant and would add to the article. To prevent anybody to feel offended by a perceived inappropriate edit, I'm asking the opera experts/fans their opinion before making the edit. If there is no formal or widespread opposition I'll include this reference keeping in line with the style of the article.
Having said that, a future article about this movie and would be included in the "Carmen (disambiguation)" page after I translate the one in the spanish WikiPedia into english.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And what about the London's Royal Opera (see www.roh.org.uk/movies) production of Carmen directed by Francesca Zambello, conducted by Antonio Pappano High Definition and Digital Surround Sound version? How should this be categorized: as a movie or as a recording? TomyDuby (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Carmen alternate

In 1978 by Elena Obraztsova Carmen does not die. The article does not mention it. Where did the alternate script, lyrics and music come? I am pretty sure, I saw it. Don José and Carmen embrace at the end and everybody is happy! Someone should put that missing information... Davichito (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why I didnt see this before :)). Davichito, in 1978, Elena Obraztsova plays the role opposite Plácido Domingo, and I have watched it for countless times. She died! - Jay (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Scenes

Note: Oratorio is a musical composition for voices and orchestra based on a religious text, it is not same as Prelude Music that precedes a fugue or introduces an act in an opera, it could or could not be used as an intro into religious scenes! Of course there are preludes for piano, same idea but different themes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirandamir (talk • contribs) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First Spanish singer to sing Carmen

I've just removed a statement in Conchita Supervía's article that in 1930 she was the first Spanish singer to sing Carmen. It wasn't sourced and it already had a fact tag. Does anyone know of a Spaniard who sang Carmen prior to 1930? The closest I've come is Lucrezia Bori, who sang Micaela in 1911. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Maria Gay was a Spanish mezzo who first sang the role in 1902 and was a major interpreter of the part. Markhh (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is a Toreador?

A Torero, perhaps?, Bizet made one of the most famous errors in arts and yet no one seems to ever say anything.--142.68.45.96 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While not now used to describe a bullfighter in Spanish-speaking countries, toreador is an archaic but perfectly valid alternate Spanish word for torero. According to Merriam-Webster it dates from 1618. Perhaps Bizet and his librettist found that it was more singable and worked better in a musical setting than the more standard term. Markhh (talk) 03:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

D'Indy and the premiere

Mina Curtiss gives a lot of detail about who attended the premiere in chapter XXVII. D'Indy (and Camille Benoit) won the two tickets given by Bizet to Franck's composition class to attend the premiere. According to Curtiss, shortly after the opening night when Bizet returned to Franck's organ class d'Indy volunteered to help keep Lhérie in tune, and played in the wings for "thirty performances". Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Time passed between Act I and II

The article says "It is two months later." In the libretto (e.g. on http://opera.stanford.edu/Bizet/Carmen/acte2.html) Zuniga twice speaks of "un mois". Both times he refers to the same time span that has passed since the events that happen at the end of Act I: one month has passed since he had Carmen arrested, and Jose has since then spent that month in jail for letting her escape. I don't see the libretto mentioning a time span of two months? 217.235.149.237 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the text to one month.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

MP3 Not Working

I would fix this, but I don't know how... The Prelude MP3 in Act I isn't working —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.27.12 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I cant find a reference to an MP3 file of the Prelude in the article. Do you mean File:Toreador song.ogg which appears in the article to the right of the section "Act 1"? That's not an MP3 file but an Ogg file; for problems with playing such files, see media help. Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. It's the first media file in the article. It's titled "The Prelude" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.27.12 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The file does work. It isn't an MP3, it's an .ogg. If your computer isn't set up to play .ogg files, it won't work. See Wikipedia:Media_help for more. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move

This page move seems pointless. We now have the REDIRECT Carmen pointing to Carmen (opera). Clearly, the disambiguator is not needed. Was this discussed anywhere or was it just a bold decision? If the latter, I feel the second step of WP:BRD coming on. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was wondering about that, too. I hadn't checked, and just assumed Carmen was now a disambiguation page. But nooo. The move was never discussed, and ought to be reverted, imo. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ditto from me. Note there is now a page Carmen (disambiguation), but the opera is clearly the primary topic. Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes the opera should not be disambiguated because it is the primary topic.4meter4 (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

About the key of the Fate Motive in the Prelude

I reviewed the score downloaded from IMSLP. The score shows that the key of the "Fate Motive"/"Fate Theme", which is the third thematic section in the Prelude, turns out to be C minor instead of D minor.

But I noticed here, under Musical Elements section, it reads,

"The Prelude is in three sections: in A major the flamboyant Act IV 'Spanish' music of the bull-fight, then the 'Toreador Song', and finally a plunge into D minor and the motive marked by the augmented second, linked both to Carmen, and to Don José's fatal attraction to her, finishing on a diminished 7th chord."

Can someone confirm this for me? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvd627 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at one of the scores on IMSLP, also the Eulenberg edition (1992/2003) I have; at the end of the reprise of the first subject, the Andante Moderato in bar 121 has violins playing D and A and violas playing F natural. I am not sure where you get the C minor from? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

1820 or 1830

Is there a need for an amendment, or at least a note about the date. The libretto gives the date of the action as 1820:

• the libretto as uploaded on wikisource: http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Carmen_(op%C3%A9ra)
• also my editions of Kobbé and Oxford Companion to Music give 1820
• In recordings; ones I have where a date is given they are all 1820 (Wolff, Cohen, Fruhbeck de Burgos)

but my edition of Grove gives 1830... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No comments or objections, so I will make a change with a footnote. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Standardization of the word Gypsy

If no one disagrees, I'm going to change all instances of "gypsy" to "Gypsy", as it's a proper noun. EDIT: Except for the one instance of "gypsy life" in which it clearly refers to the perceived lifestyle of the Romani people. Sailorknightwing (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Toreador or Torero

Shouldn't Escamillo be described as a Torero, rather than as a Toreador? Wikipedia claims that people fighting bulls in the arena are Toreros, Toreador is not recognised. "Asterix in Spain" has a specific note from the author saying that Torero is the real word, not Toreador. ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djingis Khan (talk • contribs) 18:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's toreador because the opera Carmen is a fictional work of art, based on another work of art, not a documentary or academic study. The two words are used rather interchangably in the opera libretto, but in Merimée picador seems to be the word used for Lucas. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be odd not to describe Escamillo as Toreador when the most famous aria of the opera is called "Toreador Song" and features the word "Toréador" quite prominently. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If Bizet's librettists had used the word Torero, that aria might have been far less catchy! Markhh (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Toreador may be archaic but it's an authentic Spanish word for bullfighter. According to Merriam-Webster it dates back to 1618. No idea if it was still current in Bizet's time. Markhh (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just pipe a link on Toreador in the role table to Torero. That's more than sufficient and remains congruent to the word used in the opera and in the English translation of it. Per Cg2p0B0u8m, this article is about a 19th century opera, not a treatise on bullfighting. Which brings me to another point. Why on earth is this article placed in Category:Bullfighting? It isn't remotely about bullfighting, apart from the fact that one of Carmen's lovers is a bull-fighter and she's murdered outside a bull ring by her former lover, an army corporal. Voceditenore (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How silly. I've re moved that category. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Article needs attention

Carmen is one of the most popular of all operas, and its WP article ought to do it justice. At the moment it falls a long way short of being an example of WP's best work. Among the most obvious shortcomings are:-

• Chronic lack of citations in large areas of the article
• Overlong and overdetailed synopsis - 1500 words. Needs reducing by about half, into a concise summary of the plot
• The largely unattributed act-by-act descriptions of "Musical elements" need to be rewritten more succinctly and tied into specific critical commentary
• The long list of Carmen-related films and stage shows has no justifiable place in this article, which should be about the opera; these films and shows are about aspects of the "Carmen" character rather than the opera. The list should be replaced by a prose paragraph, perhaps merged with the "Recordings" section, which mentions those films and shows closely related to the opera, e.g. Carmen Jones. The deteialed list, however, should be transferred to a sub-article, as is the case with the list of recordings (which also needs a lot of attention).
• The structure of the article needs to be revised, to correspond broadly to the standard adopted for the opera articles that have already achieved featured status, e.g. Tosca.

I am prepared to do a significant amount of the work necessary to raise the standards of this article but before beginning I would like to establish a broad consensus for the approach indicated above. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your proposals, Brian. This article has bugged me for a long time, and many thanks for being willing to take this on.;-) I especially agree re the list of "adaptations". I'm on favour of hiving it off to a separate page (referenced additions only) and summarizing a few of the key adaptations, which minimally require having used Bizet's score, in this article. However, I'd still give it a separate section with a link to the hived-off list at the top of the section. Or possibly in a section titled "Recording history and adaptations". They wouldn't fit easily into a section simply titled "Recording history". I'd be happy to do the separate page for adaptations, if you think that would help. Just give a shout when you think it's an appropriate time to split it off Voceditenore (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good proposal. As about 2 or 3 years ago I made many corrections and additions to the article, so I am probably not the most objective to comment further.

However, I think most of the ‘adaptations’ can be simply disposed of.

It sounds ambitious to cut the synopsis by half – there is a lot of incident relevant to the plot, are readers really put off by the length?

For the music descriptions I am probably the main culprit, maybe there are better sources to use (I cannot yet find my notes of exactly where each sentence was adapted from).

'Recording history' is always dangerous because everyone can find positive reviews for their favourite recording.

I am not sure the piece is that bad in terms of overall content, but it certainly will benefit greatly from re-phrasing and structuring and general polishing. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that not all the content is bad, but the main work on the article was done years ago when standards of what qualified as "best work" were less clearcut, especially with regard to citations. Having worked on the Bizet biography and Les pecheurs de perles, I have plenty of relevant sources, and I think that Les pecheurs provides a reasonable structural model. I will be working on this project in fits and starts, as I have other things going on, but I'll probably begin by expanding the Background section and developing "Writing" and "Composition" subsections. I'd be surprised if it is not possible to limit the synopsis to 800 words or so without sacrificing anything of significance, but we shall see. Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help. The article says hardly anything about the spoken dialogue, I notice, and there's a comparison with The Tales of Hoffmann in that it was tinkered with - to its detriment - by both Ernest Guiraud and Fritz Oeser. --GuillaumeTell 18:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have begun adding and reorganising material. The article will look distinctly odd for a while, so I have placed an "under construction" banner to alert people. Some images have been removed, pending reconsideration of their best positioning and, in some cases, whether they are necessary. I would prefe it if editors did not add back material, at least until the mai redrafting process is complete, though of course any queries/problems can be raised on this talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: Good wishes to a conscientious IP, but there is no point at the moment in making editorial changes to the lead, as this will need to be completely rewritten when the main text redrafting is complete. Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

final comment...

I must apologise for not noting this before in previous comments, I had not read through the link. The source cited:

• Bizet, Georges (1958). Carmen: Opera in Four Acts. New York: G. Schirmer. OCLC 475327. http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/aaz2552/large/index.html. (Vocal score, with words provided in English and French)

is Guiraud’s arrangement. I realise it may be difficult to simply change to the 1875 vocal score (linked on IMSLP) if the Schirmer is already referenced (although the 1875 should be added), but at the minimum the source should be marked as what it is. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I chose Schirmer's edition of Guiraud's version as the basis of the numbers list for largely practical reasons. First, it is easily accessible (on the IMSLP page the PDFs can take ages to arrive); the Schirmer edition has a link direct to each individual number, whereas the other versions require endless scrolling to reach particular items; finally, the Schirmer edition carries an English translation which may be useful to readers. I agree we should specify more fully the nature of the source, and I have done this. I will also add a bit in the External links section to indicate the alternative versions available through IMSLP. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - the Indiana link is very user-friendly. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Theatre of the premiere

The theatre where Carmen was first performed, the Salle Favart, has been removed from the article as redundant, but the theatre is not mentioned anywhere in the article. The Salle Favart, as the theatre of the opera's premiere, is specified in on pp. 92 and 178 in the 2005 book by Nicole Wild and David Charlton, Théâtre de l'Opéra-Comique Paris: répertoire 1762-1972 (Editions Mardaga, ISBN 978-2-87009-898-1). The company known as the Opéra-Comique has performed in a number of different theatres since its founding. If one looks at the table of notable premieres in the article on the company, it will be more clear why the terms Opéra-Comique and Salle Favart are not synonymous (except perhaps in the minds of contemporary opera goers whose memories or knowledge of the company do not go back to these earlier periods). In fact, from 1887 to 1898, after the premiere of Carmen, the company used a different theatre (at that time known as the Théâtre Lyrique, but now known as the Théâtre de la Ville). Moreover, the Salle Favart, which first opened in 1783, has not been used exclusively by the Opéra-Comiqe. For example, it was used by the Théâtre Italien on several occasions: from 1802 to 1804, 1815 to 1818, and 1825 to 1838 (see Grove Opera, vol. 3, p. 867). Thus, to specify the theatre that was used for the first performance of Carmen is not actually redundant. The Salle Favart is not mentioned anywhere in this article. but it only adds four words to add it. Is it really so detrimental to include it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

typo?

"Among those who attended one of these later performance was Tchaikovsky" -> "performances"? almost-instinct 09:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

fixed, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Navbox expanded

With the edit summary "Collapse navlist, the default state for this template", the long-standing navigation box {{Bizet operas}} has recently been changed in this Featured Article to display Bizet's stage works in a collapsed state after being here for some considerable time uncollapsed. That uncollapsed state was introduced on 19 December 2011 by User:Kaldari with the edit summary: "setting to expanded=Operas since the content is short and there is no possibility of it interfering with other images or content on the page". As far as I know, that edit has never been questioned, much less reverted. The documentation at {{Composer navbox}}, the basis of most Operas by composer templates, does indeed express a preference for collapsed display, but only because an uncollapsed display might interfere with other page elements. This concern has been adequately considered by Kaldari in the decision to use the template uncollapsed. I agree with that decision and suggest to restore the template to the uncollapsed state. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I greatly prefer it closed, since I think all these links to his other operas are distracting to readers. (A reason similar to why I find the Infobox opera so distracting.) Yes, they are useful when you need them, but why display them when you don't? In fact, it's the feature of the Composer navbox that I like best about it, that these links are hidden. It's essentially a simple portrait of the composer without all the other bits that distract the reader from the lead of the article. The other characteristic I like about this template, is that, since it mainly only displays the composer's image, it acts almost like a logo that establishes a brand, whether it be, for example, a Donizetti, Bizet, Verdi, or a Puccini opera. The brain takes it in quickly, recognizes the brand, and moves on the article itself. Logos are usually simple and not distracting. Do you spend a lot of time looking at the Wikipedia logo? No, you hardly even notice it. Even so, it serves an important function, telling you where you are. Then there are these infoboxes. I don't mind Infoboxes that have something to say, but when they don't, then I think we are better off without them. I view the list of links similarly. It is distracting when it is displayed. When hidden, it's still there, so it is very useful, but only when you need it. If not, I prefer the white space. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Drive-by kudos

This is well written and very helpful (I just read it because I'm about to attend a performance). Thanks to whoever did the main work here. Opus33 (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Music fragments need attribution

The first two of the (very nicely selected) musical fragments need attribution. It isn't fair to the artists to include their work without at least indicating who is singing and where the performance was recorded! 67.241.72.139 (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Musopen clips, unfortunately it is not known who is singing on these tracks, just that they are Public Domain. I believe I've heard these kinds of higher-quality Musopen recordings are from some 1970s record label that went bankrupt and made its recordings PD. --Morn (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why this stupid editing war?

There are two editors who wish to remove mention of either the Habanera or the Toreador Song as among the best-known arias of this opera. Why? They both are and that is a well-known fact! Kostaki mou (talk) 01:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it would be better ...

... to have a pic from the opera on top of the page, not the composer. It is pretty boring to see Mr. Verdi in 40 opera featured as the first one. If someone googles for Carmen, he or she wants to see Carmen. Therefore I propose to put a picture of an actual opera production on top.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Project opera

Carmen
opera in 4 acts by George Bizet
Célestine Galli-Marié, the protagonist of the premiere in 1875
Librettist	Henri Meilhac Ludovic Halévy
Language	French
Based on	Carmen, novella by Prosper Mérimée
Premiere	3 March 1875 (1875-03-03) Opéra-Comique, Paris

Project opera developed {{infobox opera}}, an infobox for operas. Please help discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify, members of WikiProject Opera have developed an infobox for possible use in opera articles. Whether to add this as an option to our Article Guide is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Opera Infobox update. – Voceditenore (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

After the discussion which had been open for two weeks, {{infobox opera}} has now been added to our article guide as an option for articles on individual operas [3]. Voceditenore (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

While the picture is suitable (though the medium is not explained), this is another example of a badly considered infobox. The genre is wrong (as baldly stated) and it doesn't include information that the first-time reader might reasonably want to know. These infoboxes will continue to be badly implemented until the box protagonists start asking themselves what the boxes are actually supposed to accomplish. Kleinzach 07:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The box appears to be functioning perfectly; providing a handy summary of salient information about the subject. You say the genre is wrong, which is easily corrected, though you don't say what it should be. You also claim that "it doesn't include information that the first-time reader might reasonably want to know", but don't explain what you believe that to be. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

In response to this and other discussions about "genre", I have changed the showing to a more neutral "description" for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

After several comments, back to genre, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 July 2013‎

I was bold and changed the opera to List of compositions by Georges Bizet#Stage works, to have his other operas available here, besides the footer navbox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox summarize the topic of the article? Readers need only to click on Bizet's name for list of works, let alone find it at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It should show key facts at a glance. A navbox is at the bottom. In the current article, it's on the side ad at the bottom. I find infobox + navbox more attractive than two navboxes, and the image, of course ;)

But now there are two navboxes, top and bottom, and no infobox at all. Unless I'm confused which is always a good possibility. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox opera pic

I added this classic poster for Carmen to the Infobox opera that is in the collection of the Library of Congress. Yes, it is brash and colorful with dancing, quite in keeping with the title role of Carmen, and the bold blue and red evoke her hot and cold character. I find the new pic to be awfully dull by comparison. But perhaps the poster is more to American tastes. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• BTW, the first sentence calls it an opera, so why was this removed? --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

My pic choice is shown above, showing a person, not some Arabic scene. "Opera" should return, "Carmen" could be a person, a poem, a play, ... - please say "Opera" on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Three editors, three different pics. Not too surprising! --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The colours in the Los Angeles poster evoke in me indeed more Americana than Carmen associations. The Galli picture is already in full length in the article, as it should be, so the crop can't be used again for the infobox. So I used the one linked in most other Wikipedias. As I explained in my edit summary, Carmen is an opéra comique, but I think that placing that in the infobox will lead to unnecessary discussions ("comic opera? RLY?" – example provided on request). This is one of those cases where the infobox mechanism fails (|influenced by= and |influenced= in other infoboxes, now removed, are similar). Thanks for correcting my faulty mention of the other librettist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The opening words of the article are Carmen is an opera in four acts.... If that's good enough to start the lede, then "opera" should be good enough for the infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would try the complete Galli picture in the infobox and swap the present poster image to its current position, and find room for the composer's head. I used the crop above to not abuse space on this talk, but there seems to be plenty of white space next to the TOC. I would also like to know what Brian thinks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I too would very much like to hear from Brianboulton, who brought this article to FA status. On the whole, it's preferable to use a contemporary image. The WPA poster is anachronistic and the large print at the top is is visually distracting. On the other hand, the current one is dull as dishwater. How about File:Carmen - illustration by Luc for Journal Amusant 1875.jpg, which I just uploaded? Also, I see nothing wrong with "Opera by Georges Bizet" at the top. That wording makes no visible reference to a specific sub-genre. It simply states what Carmen is—an opera. The opening sentence of the article says it's an opera. Just about anyone in the English-speaking world would call it an opera. The Royal Opera House calls it an opera. Even the old navbox listed it under the heading... er... operas. Opéra comique is simply a sub-genre of the over-arching genre of opera and is quite rightly discussed in the body of article. I think the current "opera-less" version looks silly and is potentially confusing. For the completely uninitiated reader: Is it book? A film? A play? Voceditenore (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I was bold, restored the general genre Opera, which is also a category it's in, and tried the attractive new picture. Now people who want to compare can simply click on different versions in the history. Boldest part is that I add a third comment to this discussion, - hoping that I will be forgiven for not leaving just an edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 August 2014‎

I think it now looks great!! Maybe this whole discussion will make us more aware of the need for additional visual interest within the articles, so just uploaded pix of all three of the singers at the premiere of La traviata in the Perf. history section. Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have just got notification of this. The Luc illustration added by Gerda is, I think, an attractive and acceptable lead image for the Carmen article, and she has sensibly restored "Opera" to the top heading. The Philharmonic Auditorium poster looks frankly awful and the 1875 poster, while more historically justifiable, lacks any real appeal. I suggest we leave well alone now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Taking the risk that the arbitration enforcers will come after me for a fourth comment, I want to point out that thanks for the great pic should go to Voceditenore! I will go and hopefully find space for the images of the composer and the poster, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I like this 1875 one quite a lot. Plus, it has the important cigarette. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I will be in a minority of one by saying I don't think the picture should be featured at the top in this way. When you look at the original page in Gallica, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85274932/f36.item you can see it is from a satirical / comic magazine (the rest of that entry is colourized postcards).

I was also suspicious of the graphic style - it surely could not be from the 1870s, more Belle Epoque - in fact if you scan to the last page of this Journal Amusant edition from 1911 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5501597j/f1.image.r=carmen.langEN you can find the picture, with its caption ("Avec toutes leurs musiques viennoises, napolitaines et moscovites, il n'y aura, caramba! bientôt que moi de française.") – at a guess it is making fun of all the foreign music in Paris (Ballet Russes etc) by saying that the only french music left in Paris is Carmen. So I would prefer a more representative image of the opera! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would have thunk that introducing an infobox with a selectable image would give rise to different opinions about the suitability of such images? @Cg2p0B0u8m:, you are not a minority of one – I agree. I would prefer the composer or the previously in that position shown premiere poster, but I'm not fanatical about it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope I am not fanatical either; but either of those would do nicely while a better one emerges. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

More on the date of the cartoon. The BnF document linked (http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85274932/) which includes the cropped version of the cartoon on page 36, also has an article by Louis Schneider on the 1,000th performance of Carmen (which was on 23 December 1904), besides the postcards etc, which proves that the material in this 36-page bundle comes from different years. (The Schneider article has the names of the cast of the performance written at the top of the first page)Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox opera pic - again

I personally find the current picture in the infobox to be too sexualised for a neutral encyclopedic article. I'd suggest the previous picture instead. Thoughts? –– ♫ Mara/Freya ♫ 18:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the current image is more representative of the topic - the opera is, after all, about seduction, so we would expect some sexualization. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The current image is a fantastic caricature of Carmen down to the cigarette, whereas the other image could frankly be any character from the era. Given the content of the opera's plot/libretto I don't think the sexualised content is inappropriate or unwarranted. In fact, this picture is downright tame compared to portrayals of Carmen I have seen at multiple opera houses over the years, including the Metropolitan Opera. Check out the Royal Opera, London 2011production of Carmen for example. 4meter4 (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The image is a good summary of the character, her iconography, her Importance in French opera. It's true to the piece, it doesn't seem to reduce Carmen merely to a sex object. It is mildly satirical, so you could argue with it on that basis as the lead image, it's witty in tone, not serious. I don't think it needs to be changed, but the portrait of Galli-Mariė in the classic Carmen costume might be a better choice. Markhh (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the 1875 image is a very apt illustration for this article. While the previous image has the advantage of showing the role creator, I don't agree it would be a better choice as the lead image. 1) It's already used in the article; 2) as 4meter4 stated, it serves better as a representation of Galli-Marié than of Carmen. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Trivia section removed

I have removed the recently added "Trivia" section with its sole contents:

In October 2014, the West Australian Opera announced that it would not stage the opera for the next two years because Carmen works in a cigarette factory and the opera company had signed a deal with Healthway, a government organisation that promotes health in Western Australia.

Apart from violating WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE, this utterly trivial factoid belongs (if anywhere) in West Australian Opera. It adds nothing to the reader's understanding of Bizet's opera and is particularly inappropriate in a Featured Article. Voceditenore (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm not entirely happy with an image from a parody newspaper as the lead image - that's kind of like using the cartoons from MAD magazine or Viz to illustrate the subject they're parodying. I'd like to swap it for http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8415848g/f1.zoom.r=carmen%20bizet.langEN - any objections? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I much prefer the current one frankly, per the comments by other editors in the section above (Talk:Carmen#Infobox opera pic - again). Note also, the Gallica one you suggest was painted by Prosper Mérimée in 1846, 30 years before the opera premiered. It was illustrating his novella, not the opera, and is also used (in an inferior reproduction) at Carmen (novella). It's completely unlike the opera's scenes—set in a middle class house complete with white tablecloth. The girl is dressed in white, and pleading with Don José, which suggests it depicts Micaela rather than Carmen. Voceditenore (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I concur with voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

So do I, I wouldn't even include it anywhere else in this article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marstonrecords.com/carmen2/carmen2_tracks.htm

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Gypsy vs Romani

The article consistently uses the term "Gypsy". I understand that "some people consider [this word] pejorative due to its connotations of illegality and irregularity" and some Romani have even called it a slur. I feel it would be better to replace it with the less offensive, more neutral endonym "Romani". Venicedoge (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

a) "pejorative, illegal, irregular, slur" – That's part of the reason why Carmen is a gypsy. b) Read the novella Carmen: EN, FR – Mérimée used Bohémiens, Gitanos, Gypsies, Zigeuner. c) Read the libretto: Carmen is mostly described as bohémienne, but also as zingara; how would you translate bohémienne? Bohemian? The customary translation for Carmen is gypsy. Rewriting literature according to modern sensibilities is counterproductive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rewrite literature. I don't think most people understand the connotations of "Gypsy". I think a better way to get the message across that it has a connotation of "pejorative, illegal, irregular, slur" would be to make a note that "bohémienne" and "zingara" are used in the libretto and give an explanation of the connotations, rather than to use a particular translation that is considered offensive. Analogously, in Huckleberry Finn, the "n-word" is used over 200 times toward Jim. Many would argue that the use of this word was integral to the story and the message about Jim's personhood and racism that Twain was trying to get across. Do you think that avoiding using the "n-word" to describe Jim in the Wikipedia article is a rewriting of the story?

Venicedoge (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.189.32 (talk)

The subject of this article is the opera Carmen. Following the text of novel and libretto, its title character is customarily described as a gypsy in English, and that link takes the interested reader to a lengthy article about Romani people, which in turn links to Names of the Romani people. Those articles are much better places to provide history and connotations of the term. As for Huckleberry Finn, I note that the article discusses Twain's use of "nigger" extensively, starting in the lead, and that the novel is mentioned in the article on that word, so I don't understand the premise of your point that Wikipedia avoids the word. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids casually referring to Jim as the n-word, but does not avoid using the word altogether. Following that format, the article on Carmen would use "Romani" in casual reference to characters, but would also extensively discuss the use of the word "Gypsy" and its connotations within the opera (and libretto). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.127.189.67 (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Synopsis format

As far as I can make out, it's considered perfectly acceptable to subdivide this section into acts: [4]. It's also practical (for reasons that should be obvious?) and conforms with at least many other opera articles.151.177.62.193 (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable, yes; required, no. As for practicality, that depends: it does allow one to jump directly to the section on a particular act from the TOC, but it also increases the length of the TOC (and of course limiting the TOC depth to address that problem would also eliminate the advantage). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. But this other editor called it an "inappropriate format change". I cannot see what's inappropriate. Being able to readily see what happens in what act or having a short TOC is a matter of personal taste. Or having manageable chunks of text or a TOC that can be taken in without scrolling. But shouldn't it be technically possible to make a TOC (or subdivisions of it) folding? Other things here can be made folding. 151.177.62.193 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

By folding, do you mean collapsible? Yes, that is possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, collapsible. I can't search for instructions right now, but then that should solve the problem. Or? 151.177.62.193 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The template is {{TOC hidden}}. However, that solution is not without its own problems - depending on your screen size it may cause layout problems, for example. I'd like to hear Voceditenore's thoughts on the matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Uninvited comment: "collapsed" comes with two problems, it often results in wrong position for links to a section below it (for a TOC, that's all sections), and physically handicapped readers may have a problem to uncollapse. - I prefer to treat the synopsis as one section. I never felt an urge to look at only one act. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

OK and thank you both. Seems like some unpaid technician would come in handy... (Perhaps I can add that I can feel an urge to look up one act – or to get fast to one act without having to scroll around. Just to illustrate the diversity.) 151.177.62.193 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Since I was pinged... I really don't care one way or another. When 151.177.62.193| reverted me I just let it be. Per Nikkimaria, it causes some issues with the TOC (my problem). The counterargument is that section breaks make for easier editing of the synopsis. But this is a Fearured Article and the synopsis is unlikely to require any editing. Anyhow, you pays yer money and you takes yer chance. :-) Voceditenore (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Opera-comique version

(Apologies - I can't figure out accents on my laptop.) It would be so nice to have a section detailing specific differences between the original opera-comique version (with extensive dialogue) and the version with the composed recitatives (the one customarily performed). -- kosboot (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that straightforward. I've seen the dialogue version (used in the movie), a through-composed version (Sarasota Opera) and a hybrid version ( for example, Carmen used spoken dialogue shortly before the Sequidilla) at the Atlanta Opera. Apparently it's up to the production how they mix the versions together. The big difference is that the through-composed version often cuts lines from the original. For example, in the spoken-dialogue version the innkeeper asks E. to describe his feelings during a bullfight. In the through-composed version, E. simply launches into the Toreasor song without any prompting. Other things vary. Opera historian Ernest Newman said in his early-twentieth century book that the complicated ending of the Toreador Song, where the three girls vie for E.'s attention, was customarily cut. Nowadays every production I've seen includes it. 2001:558:6011:1:11B7:55ED:94CC:AC2C (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Early revivals

Wagner praise? The following is citation from David Foil text for Carmen Black Dog Opera Library: "Wagner in fact abhorred Carmen. So intense was his dislike that it widened a longstanding breach between him and the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche that would never heal"

Wagner name should be replaced by Tchaikovsky "who was an early fan of Carmen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditt (talk • contribs) 18:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

After the performances of Carmen in Vienna in November 1875, Hans von Bülow reported: "Wagner and Brahms vied with each other in extolling Bizet's masterpiece." (John W. Klein, "Bizet's Admirers and Detractors", Music & Letters, Vol. 19, No. 4 Oct., 1938, pp. 405-416 [p. 409]. JSTOR 727723. This article is cited by Mina Curtiss.) Could Wagner have changed his mind, after Nietzsche started using Carmen as a counterexample to criticize Wagner's work? According to Klein, the only evidence that Wagner disliked the work comes from Nietzsche and his friend Carl von Gersdorff. --Robert.Allen (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

TFAR for 3 March

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Carmen 2 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Adaptations and Inline Citation conventions

Having just had an edit adding an adaptation reverted, it seems the local convention on this page (or opera section?) is for inline citation. Ok, I can imagine reasons for that, especially on a page considered to be of high quality. Posting this note to check if there’s some particular aspect of the citation that’s expected, since the previous edit linked to two established WP articles with onward imdb etc links. Conflatuman (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That the article on The Wild, Wild Rose claims that film is based on Carmen is insufficient. At the time of your edit, that article didn't provide any supporting citation. You've added that since. Still, material in this article (Carmen) needs to be sourced; a link to another article where a citation can be found is not enough. This is not a principle for this article or opera articles in general but demanded by WP:Verifiability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and I also see that you included a note in your related edit. I got notified with the parallel edit which was a straight revert, so missed that at the time. I was surprised to see the edit treated as (essentially) spam when the connection to Carmen is in the first sentence of the IMDB page (which was already linked). At any rate if there is no particular critical canon this is restricted to, I will simply try to be more careful to include a citation within an atomic edit in the future. Conflatuman (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Conflatuman, IMDB is not a reliable source (see WP:RS/IMDB) and should not be used on any article, let alone an FAC. I have also removed the two ‘citation needed’ tags you left, as the information is supported by the nest source in the sentence: please be careful when adding tags and check the subsequent source next time. 213.205.194.46 (talk) 08:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I will steer clear of IMDB, thanks. Am a bit confused about how the reader will find the reference in the next sentence when the first citation is solely on the Godard adaptation. Conflatuman (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The information was in the following reference. I’ve added it to the first one. 213.205.194.46 (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Need for context

"Two Women in the Tobacco Factory at Seville" (1883) by Constantin Meunier

I understand that this is primarily an article dealing with the opera itself, but I'm a little surprised that the article reached FA-status without including any consideration of the wider context and inspirations for the themes within it (eg. the female workers at the Royal Tobacco Factory in Seville and the sexualised "gypsy" image of Spanish women in 19th-century European popular culture). Paul Preston addresses this in detail in A People Betrayed (2020) and I am sure he is not alone in doing so. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd think that's rather a topic for the novella. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to Gerda's remark: Does Preston deal with the opera? Does his book (A People Betrayed … in Modern Spain 1874–2018) deal with the novella (which was published in 1854? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are right to give the above topics the same coverage in our article as Grove and Kobbe do, viz none. Those doubtless worthy topics belong in a book, and not in a 6,000-word encyclopaedia article. – Tim riley talk 14:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Tim riley.--Smerus (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tambours

The 'snare drum' part reprinted by Kalmus and hosted at IMSLP is labeled Tambours, and seems to be making some distinction between tambour de Basque (tambourine) and tambourin (Tabor (instrument)#Usage?). I don't yet quite understand if the Eulenberg score given as a reference for "side drum" uses English, and whether the redirects side drum and field drum need attention. Sparafucil (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would it say tambourine twice? DrKay (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, tambourin and tambourine are not the same things. Sparafucil (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. If the source reads "instrumentation includes a tambourin and a tambourine", why would we suppose that a tambourin means a tambourine and not a tabor? It seems obvious that it does not mean a tambourine and does indeed mean a drum. DrKay (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and the question then is what kind of drum. Sparafucil (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

You'll both have to excuse my ignorance, as I'm struggling to follow this thread—perhaps Sparafucil can help me here. It does seem possible (though unlikely) that Bizet called for both a tambourine and tabor (as the score suggests), but what I don't understand is the apparent assumption that tambourin could mean some type of drum? Regardless, it seems dubious to use another score's parts as reasoning for why the cited score may be incorrect. The closest thing I could find to help (the product of minimal research) is an orchestral reductation that lists side drum & tambourine (it says the percussion parts are unchanged from the original), though the reliabillity of this source is questionable. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Riley putting oar in: the article in Grove by the great percussionist James Blades says this: Tambourin (de Provence) ... A double-headed drum from Provence in the form of a large tabor with a long cylindrical body and a single snare on the upper head; it is classified as a membranophone. It is often referred to as tambourin provençal; the variant forms ‘tabour’ and its diminutive ‘tabourin’ are also found in medieval sources. The confusion between "tambourin" in this sense and "tambourine" as in the thing with jingles on the side has led many musicians astray. I recall Beecham's recording of the L'Arlesienne music being criticised for using the jingly device instead of the old-fashioned drum, not that Sir Thomas took much notice of musicological niceties, and his recordings of L'Arlesienne and Carmen (recits and all) are the ones on my shelves, but I digress. Tim riley talk 23:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess in Beecham's defense, no one really cared much about getting the instruments "right" until Harnoncourt. I appear to have misunderstood what the tambourin is. My assumption then, is that Bizet wrote for tambourine and tambourin (de Provence)/tabor but modern orchestras might now substitute the latter for snare/side drum. It appears that the score in question is indeed in French/German, so perhaps whoever wrote the section assumed the tambourin (de Provence)/tabor was just a snare drum? Or am I completely off here? Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that's right, but I am quite prepared to be corrected. Beecham, by the way, defined a musicologist as "a man who can read music but can't hear it", which describes Harnoncourt astonishingly accurately, methinks. Tim riley talk 23:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt Blades at all about tambourin provençal being Bizet's drum, and reliable sourcing of that might be a problem for the Tabor (instrument) page. What Carmen needs to decide now is whether 'side drum' or tambourin [de Provence? provençal?] should link to tabor, and whether Didion's edition clarifies Bizet's exact term.Sparafucil (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Escamillo

An IP changed "bass-baritone" to "baritone" in the Roles section. As there was no citation for the change I have reverted it, but I'm not sure it was wrong. The 1905 Peters full score at IMSLP has Escamillo as "Bariton". Any views, please, colleagues? Tim riley talk 21:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The terms are so ambiguous that a reasonable argument could be made for either; especially since some (a bit dubiously) see baritone as a broad term, and think of bass-baritones as technically baritones. This seems to suggest Bass-Baritone while Grove suddenly suggests Baritone. This most direct seems the Carmen Grove article, which says outright "Bass-Baritone", so I guess we ought to stick with that. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Aza24. We could put a footnote in explaining the difference in voice type descriptions in existing sources at the bottom of the article.4meter4 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added the ref and a brief footnote explaining possible confusion. Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Character description

Is Don José 'naïve'? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The authors of the Metropolitan Opera Guide think he is ("A riveting story of fatal attraction between a beguiling, strong-willed gypsy and a naive but passionate soldier who falls under her spell…") and if you search for "Don José, the naïve..." in the Internet Archive you will find six publications that so describe him; a search on the relevant words in Google Books also brings up a fair few hits for Carmen. José is described as naïve in an interesting article "Don Juan [sic] and Carmen" by John Dowling (The Comparatist, May 1989, University of North Carolina Press). So, I'd answer yes to your question (and if I were a tenor, which God forbid, I don't know how I'd manage to play him as sophisticated, knowing or worldly, even for the most perverse "concept" director). Tim riley talk 18:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I know that wonderful WIkipedia is built around 'reliable sources' and I don't doubt that this word occurs in some/many of them. So I won't begin a 'my sources are bigger than yours' exchange (you'll be pleased to hear!). But - as you can imagine - I feel this word on its own does not do justice to this important character - the equal of Carmen - who has killed a man after a game of pelota, joined the army and agreed to marry an orphan adopted by his mother. Our old friend Winton Dean gives a brilliant description of Don José and his musical and dramatic development in his Bizet book (p223-226 of my 1978 edition) ...and uses many other adjectives. Perhaps my mistake was in my question: I should have asked "if you have one word to describe Don José, what would it be?". In an old Glyndebourne programme book I think Rodney Milnes says something like, he starts as unbalanced in Act 1 and ends Act 3 unhinged.

Your comments on your putative operatic career make me wonder whether naive refers to all the performances of tenors down the years, rather than the character himself...

Anyway, I won't make a big deal, I just think the current adjective is inadequate.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions for redrawing the phrase, and I imagine – no, I'm sure – other interested editors will be, too. May I invite you to propose some words? Tim riley talk 17:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will ponder and see if I have some inspiration.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC) So... I cannot yet find the Milnes quote I was thinking of, but on p105 of the 2002 Glyndebourne book, talking about the importance of the dialogue, Milnes writes « We really do need to know that the man is a bit off-centre, if not an odd-ball, before the action starts to unfold ». Some of the phrases used by Dean include « In act 1 he is a simple countryman, albeit in a dragoon's uniform »; in Act 2 after release from prison « there is a touch of bravado, of a self-confidence more bumptious than balanced », the last bars of the Flower Song show « José's instinctive knowledge that his emotions have grown beyond his control, it is an appeal at once desperate and pathetic to Carmen's pity »; in Act 3 « he is like an animal in a cage...maddened by jealousy, conscience and despair […] he bursts out in the emotional climax of the whole opera »; in act 4 « hysteria has given way to the desperation of a cornered animal.» I hope these ideas move things forward... Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll ponder this, though I think Rodders was habitually a B.F. (Right about surtitles, but little else.). More anon. Tim riley talk 19:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Prudent-Louis Leray - Poster for the première of Georges Bizet's Carmen.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 28, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-07-28. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Carmen is an opera in four acts by the French composer Georges Bizet, with a libretto written by Henri Meilhac and Ludovic Halévy based on a novella by Prosper Mérimée. This lithographic poster, illustrated by Prudent-Louis Leray, advertised the opera's premiere, which took place in Paris on 3 March 1875. It was not initially a success; the audience at the Opéra-Comique was shocked by the drastic realism of the action and by the low standing and immorality of most of the characters. However, later that year, after Bizet's unexpected death, an adaptation by Ernest Guiraud performed by the Vienna Court Opera became a great success with the public, and Guiraud's version went on to achieve worldwide fame.

Poster credit: Prudent-Louis Leray; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:

• 1934 Swissair Tuttlingen accident
• Japanese government-issued dollar in Malaya and Borneo
• Castle of St John the Baptist

This is good news, and the article by Brianboulton in excellent shape, - was TFA on the premiere day this year. In the blurb, Cwmhiraeth, I suggest - very minor - to link to Opéra-Comique, and to drop the quotation marks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Bizet - Carmen - 1 - Act 1 - Scene 5 - L'amour est un oiseau rebelle (Habanera).oga
• Bizet - Entr'acte to Act III from Carmen (Musopen).ogg
• Bizet - Entr'acte to Act IV from Carmen (Musopen).ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Beer Song

The Beer Song is a parody using the melody from the prelude to Act I. It sounds like Weird Al, but it would be his only song about alcohol or drugs, so might be someone else. All versions that I've seen on the internet attribute the artist to others, but they are inconsistent. Vinzklorthos (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Entr'actes

In the "Musical numbers" section, it looks strange to see the three entr'actes placed at the end of the previous act. Shouldn't those be listed at the beginning of each act as they are curtain raisers? Does this have something to do with the numbering? 2600:1700:243D:20E0:6DCD:AF80:C5BF:7950 (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)