Talk:List of operas by composer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

John Eaton operas

Do we need the complete works here? I've asked Jerome Kohl see here --Kleinzach 00:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose/goal of this page

I think we need to discuss what exactly we intend this page to be. It is obvious that each of us has our own opinions and I think it would be good to address this issue. I personally am in favor of a more inclusive article in terms of what composers are allowed on the page. I don't mind having more obscure composers on this list if viable opera articles could be created. I do think though that we should avoid listing every work by every composer. I think it would be better to only include operas that are still in the repetory, are of significance to opera history, or significant to the career of the composer (this is where I differ with the current definition). Since I am inclusive with opera composers that means some minor works will make it on to the page and in my opinion that is ok. To only include works by major composers would basically be a regurgitation of List of important operas and List of major opera composers. This page is more useful as a reflection upon the breadth of our coverage, rather than a reflection on key works and composers in opera history. What I think should be avoided are operas that could never be expanded beyond a stub and long lists of works. I could see some trimming happening on the page but I wouldn't remove any composer all together unless you feel none of their operas could result in anything beyond a stub article. Some trimming of works by major composers would be appropriate. For example, we don't need to list every opera by Verdi (who cares about Aroldo etc.?). Obviously some personal judgement is involved and opinions may differ. As a general rule of thumb, I would say that we should be more inclusive rather than exclusive.Nrswanson (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested guidelines for inclusion

Here are some of my suggestions for guidelines on inclusion:

• 1. If a composer passes general wikipedia notability guidelines they can be included on this list.
• 2. If an opera can't be expanded beyond a stub than it shouldn't be included unless the opera in question has had a significant role within the history of opera.
• 3. If a composer does not have an opera article of at least a start quality than that composer should not be included unless the work in question is important to opera history or it is apparently obvious that red linked operas listed could be made into at least a start rated articles.
• 4. Operas currently in the repetory should be listed.
• 5. Operas that have been recorded on commercial CDs or DVDs by a major label should be included.
• 6. Operas that are significant to the career of the composer should be included. Lesser known works or works of minor importance within the career of the composer should not be included, even if articles on such operas are of high quality.
• 7. With minor composers, it is suggested that only one or two works be listed.
• 8. Operas that have not been performed professionally should not be included. Exceptions can be made for notable children's operas or operas performed at Universities if said operas have enjoyed a level of wide distribution, were made for a notable commission, the winner of a notable prize, or performed for a notable event.

Possible restrictions:

• 9. Red linked composers may not not be added.
• 10. When you add a composer you must also add at least one blue linked opera of a start rating. Additional operas can be added that are stubs or red linked.

Let me know what you all think.Nrswanson (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Note on number eight. Some Children's operas are notable even if they weren't performed by a professional company. An example would be Malcolm Williamson's The Valley and the Hill which was commissioned for the silver jubilee of Elizabeth II and was performed by 18,000 children. Also, there are a number of operas (particularly one act operas) that are frequently performed on the University level by multiple universities but have not ever been performed professionally. An example would be most of Alec Wilder's operas which have been done at Universities throughout the United States during the last five decades but have not been staged professionally. In terms of prizes and commissions some of the operas I listed recently haven't been performed professionally but did win things like the Pullitzer Prize for music, etc. I would consider such works to be notable.Nrswanson (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This is far too complicated - both for discussion, and as an outline for a possible guideline. I agree in part and disagree in part but I can't see any point in debating it. Until 6 September, the introduction to the article served a practical and simple guideline for the development of the article. I don't see why this shouldn't continue. This article has been a great success in relation to 'Composer of the Month' with overall figures at the same time as a steady rise in the ratio of blue to red from 1:1 to around 2:1. I've raised the issue of the post-Sept 6 problems on the Opera Project, see here. --Kleinzach 01:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It probably is too complicated. Perhaps we should just make the lead more inclusive.Nrswanson (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Stability of the list

Up to 6 September we had a stable list - and accurate stats. Since then we have seen a huge number of edits - additions and deletions. This threatens the usefulness of a unique list of major works that has been the roadmap for the development of coverage on WP. Can I ask everybody to stop editing now so we can re-establish the integrity of this article. --Kleinzach 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC) P.S. See also here. --Kleinzach 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If the corpus is only a roadmap then one way forward might be to remove it from the main namespace and make it an Opera Project page. I've long since stopped using it myself since being scolded for adding works of Gounod and Saint-Saëns, and there seem to be ownership issues: the bolding above doesnt clarify who "we" are or what integrity the list ever had. What criteria are you actually proposing that would list only nine of Saint-Saëns' thirteen operas? 168.150.177.5 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

All titles that have articles are listed or will be listed. The Saint-Saëns titles listed now are those that have articles on Grove (though that's not the only criteria). To that extent they have a priority but no-one is limited to writing articles on these titles. Who are you? Do you have a username? --Kleinzach 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

(Moved from main article --Stephen 04:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)) The list includes at least 2, 209 works by 682 composers (last machine count 3 September 2008).
A total of 802 opera red-linked articles remain to be written (machine count 3 September 2008).

Breakdown (2007 figures) by birth date period:

• 1550-1575: 5 composers
• 1576-1600: 7 composers
• 1601-1625: 8 composers
• 1626-1650: 9 composers
• 1651-1675: 13 composers
• 1676-1700: 17 composers
• 1701-1725: 20 composers
• 1726-1750: 29 composers
• 1751-1775: 25 composers
• 1776-1800: 24 composers
• 1801-1825: 42 composers
• 1826-1850: 46 composers
• 1851-1875: 86 composers
• 1876-1900: 95 composers
• 1901-1925: 77 composers
• 1926-1950: 79 composers
• 1951-1975: 36 composers

There are 649 men and 33 women (last machine count 3 September 2008).

The women composers are: Amy Beach, Duchess Anna Amalia of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Grazyna Bacewicz, Louise Bertin, Joanna Bruzdowicz, Francesca Caccini, Unsuk Chin, Chaya Czernowin, Deborah Drattell, Vivian Fine, Elena Firsova, Peggy Glanville-Hicks, Kazuko Hara, Moya Henderson, Élisabeth Jacquet de La Guerre, Elizabeth Maconchy, Meredith Monk, Thea Musgrave, Nicola LeFanu, Roxanna Panufnik, Rachel Portman, Kaija Saariaho, Alice Shields, Julia Smith, Ethel Smyth, Margaret Sutherland, Germaine Tailleferre, Louise Talma, Phyllis Tate, Joelle Wallach, Judith Weir, Gillian Whitehead, and Grace Williams.

Coverage here compares to about 1,800 titles in the New Grove Dictionary of Opera.

But why? Why has this been removed from the main page? Why is statistical information - and the list of women opera composers - not relevant? --Kleinzach 10:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason for this move either when the statistics have been up on the page for years. I'll revert. --Folantin (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should a supposedly encyclopaedic list have self-referential information in it? That is what the talk page is for, tracking counts and statitics for an article. Just because something has been that way for years doesn't mean it can't change. --Stephen 22:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The statistics are a summary of the information on the page. That kind of 'self-referential' information is perfectly normal everywhere and anywhere. I think you may be confused with the Wikipedia policy of avoiding self-references to Wikipedia. That's a completely different thing altogether. I'm rather surprised that you should have removed the stats again without first getting a consensus here. That's not the right way to go about this. I am restoring the stats while this discussion progresses. Thank you for your understanding. --Kleinzach 00:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is I agree with Kleinzach. This information is useful and it does no harm. --Folantin (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I too agree with Kleinzach.Nrswanson (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Balfe error

I think the opera corpus is in error re Amelia, or the Love Test. According to Michael William Balfe by William Tyldesley, Balfe sang in an opera called Amilie in Dublin 1838 by his teacher William O'Rourke (aka Rooke). But Tyldesley doesn't list Amelia, or the Love Test as one of Balfe's works. There is also a contemporary account of an 1838 London performance of Amelia, or the Love Test in Musical Review (1838) where the composer is given as Rooke. I'm going to remove it from the corpus. Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

operetta

so, the horse has bolted and there's no use saying this, but whoever decided to merge the operetta list with the opera list has done wikipedia a disservice!! anyway..how can I access the last version of the operetta list before it was merged? Thanks. 92.251.61.20 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Category:Operettas help? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The last version of the list before the contents began to be transferred to the The Opera Corpus is here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar lists in other languages

The interwicki columns has a miscellaneous collection of links. I wonder whether we should only have lists of operas by composer, i.e. not by opera title. What do other people think?--Kleinzach 06:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that a list of composers is more amenable to revision and to overall use that is a listing of opera titles. A secondary problem for a listing operas by title is whether to list the original non-English title as well as its translated title (and some operas have more than one accepted translation). Tgkohn (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My (ancient!) comment here just related to the foreign-language wiki links - it wasn't about this page as such. --Kleinzach 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Limitation to notable works

I think it is too evaluative to ascribe to the preamble statement, This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works that have articles on Wikipedia, or on another encyclopedia. The simple act of selection reveals a contributor's own limitations. What would be the criteria?

• Number of acts, with one-act operas being excluded out-of-hand
• Number of productions, with unproduced operas being excluded
• Number of characters, with monodramas being excluded
• Number of instrumentalists, with chamber operas at risk of exclusion
• Number of operas in a composer's corpus, with one-opera-wonders like Beethoven and Bartok being excluded

Wikipedia has the abilities of quick response, self-reference, and reference to outside sources. It also has the freedom of expansiveness because it does not rely on publisher limitations of book size and publishing deadlines.

These seem persuasive arguments to include complete listings of operas for many composers, likely even minor composers. Let performance practice over decades decide which of the listed composers and operas are good or at least popular. Tgkohn (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all it would be impractical to include complete listings. It would make this page extremely long and would duplicate the individual complete lists by composer, which include (sometimes highly) detailed information.

Second why is it "too evaluative" to include works that have articles in Wikipedia (or other encyclopedias)? I don't understand this point. Can you explain? --Kleinzach 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To your first point (a), complete listing makes this page extremely long--There are tools incorporated in the page for quick navigation to each letter of the alphabet, which is a workable solution to the large number of composers included now. Since the lists of works are in paragraph format, rather than list, consideration is already made for fitting several works within a relatively smaller space.

To your first point (b), complete listing duplicates complete lists by composer--The focus of this listing is the operatic work, and limited to naming and linking. It serves as a device of concise focus, where the composer's page includes work of all genres and often description of representative works' technique or influence. Thus, I see some duplication, yes, but this corpus page excels in quickly accessed, specific information for many composers.

To your second point, I note your emphasis on works that have articles on Wikipedia, or on another encyclopedia, where my intended emphasis is on questioning a selective [list] of notable works.

Do you feel the determinator on whether a work is to be listed is whether it has an article in Wikipedia ...or some other encyclopedia? Does this mean that a bot is established that notes whenever an opera has a new Wiki article? Or, less likely, that an editor reviews printed encyclopedic sources for references to new operas?

In using an act of selection, a contributor exercises an evaluation. The evaluation is one of whether a work "deserves" to be included in the list. This runs counter to the Wikipedia espousal of a neutral viewpoint.

It is important for us to understand what evaluative criteria should be exercised in deciding which composers, which opera to leave out of this list. I offered five possible criteria, but using such is problematic for me. (Best regards, and looking forward to more discussion.) Tgkohn (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding your indenting a bit confusing. Can you possibly check and correct it? Regarding the idea of including complete titles of all opera composers (10,000? 20,000? 30,000?), this would be a huge and (I believe) ultimately pointless endeavour. If you want to pursue it, I'd make a page in your own userspace and present it to the Opera Project here.

This list has been compiled manually not by bot. Opera Project editors add works when articles are written. As to neutral viewpoint, selection etc. I think you misunderstand Wikipedia, 'Neutral' viewpoint does not mean 'no' viewpoint. This list can be seen as a synthesis of many points of view, hence it is indeed neutral. --Kleinzach 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mislinks added to Pasatieri entry

Tgkohn: I've just noticed that you've added a series of blue mislinks (links that don't go to the intended opera) here. Can you fix these? Or should I delete them? --Kleinzach 23:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me to the false links. I edited all to go to a yet-to-be built page for the opera by the same name. Advise me, please, if this is not the best direction.Tgkohn (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I see you have added '(opera)' to each title. That's OK for mislinks, but not necessary for unique titles. Did you understand that? Also are you intending to write article for each one of these? If so, it's fine to list them here. --Kleinzach 00:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just fixed your mislinks for the Ashley operas as well.[1] It's a good idea to use the preview button and check all the links you've added to make sure they go where you want them to go before hitting save. If you haven't already seen it, WikiProject Opera has some guidelines about article naming here. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyuta

Anyuta appears to have been added in February 2009 with Mikhail Popov (composer) for 'composer'. The music is lost and the composer unknown. Mikhail Vasilyevich Popov is the librettist and I corrected the link accordingly. But does the entry need annotation that he is the librettist? Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO this should be regarded as a libretto. It's anomalous to start the article lead: "XYZ is an opera" when it only exists (now) as a text. And, since we don't list libretti (e.g. Metastasio) here, I think logically it should be deleted from the corpus. --Kleinzach 07:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a tricky situation. From the sources I've seen, it was definitely performed though and is considered a landmark in the development of Russian opera. There do not appear to be other settings of the same libretto. But it would take more research to verify that. Voceditenore (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. As always, I am trying to propose a solution — not a problem. --Kleinzach 08:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

In the article, I would still call it an opera based on what I said above. As for removing it from this page because its composer can't be verified (even though he obviously existed or the opera wouldn't have been performed), I have no strong feelings one way or another. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. I will remove it and leave the article to you, however (as I pointed out) you can't very well use the present tense about a lost work. --Kleinzach 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

'Black' names

I've removed a whole series of opera names in black. There is no reason to have them here. This is a list of red/blue (potential/actual) links to articles. Complete lists of works go in the biographies and specialized lists of complete works. Thank you for your understanding. --Kleinzach 23:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Schubert titles you removed were not even operas, but plays with incidental music. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this page

I am unclear as to the scope (and purpose!) of this page. It would really help me to understand if someone could explain why the following names should/ should not be included. Here are the names of >20 people with Wikipedia articles who have composed various kinds of music-theatre, none of whom are currently in the opera corpus list. OK, some are new to the genre (Alberga), some have one line stubs(!) (Alaleona, Auletta), some works are more or less distant from opera proper (Albarn, Aperghis, Aznavour), but Aho, Arnecke and Arrieta surely should be worth considering?

1. Antonio Maria Abbatini
2. Isabelle Aboulker
3. Antón García Abril
4. Johann Friedrich Agricola
5. Kalevi Aho
6. Domenico Alaleona
7. Damon Albarn
8. Eleanor Alberga
9. Joachim Albertini
10. Robert Aldridge (composer)
11. Joan Albert Amargos
12. Claudio Ambrosini
13. Gilbert Amy
14. Georges Aperghis
15. Louis Applebaum
16. Craig Armstrong (composer)
17. Jörn Arnecke
18. Emilio Arrieta
19. Robert Ashley
20. Pietro Auletta
21. Charles Aznavour

Thanks for any light that anyone can shed on the decision-making processes! Scarabocchio (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of this list says: "This list is intended to be a selective one of notable works that have articles on Wikipedia, or on another encyclopedia." See also the discussion above and in the archives, particularly Talk:The opera corpus/Archive 2#The purpose/goal of this page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I read all of those, and the subsequent questions arising from that phrase before posting mine. Scarabocchio (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This list is one of operas that are notable enough to have dedicated articles. (It's not a list of composers per se.) Let's take Antonio Maria Abbatini for example. Definitely notable, in both Oxford and Grove. Grove has an article on Dal male il bene by Margaret Murata. So he/it qualifies for the list IMO. Isabelle Aboulker likewise could be included if you have enough info. on at least one of her operas to attempt an article. Antón García Abril? Has he written any notable operas? If so he might be in. Hope this helps as a start. My recommendation would be to add to this list gradually as you work on the articles. (P.S. I don't see why Charles Aznavour is listed.) --Kleinzach 04:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, can I withdraw the question? I've decided to give up all kinds of (clarification) list-class articles for Lent and beyond. Apologies for wasting your time. (PS. Aznavour was the composer of a couple of successful comédies musicales (correction: operettas))(Operette magazine) Scarabocchio (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, actually you can't. These questions exist in perpetuity. Of course you could start a couple of new articles. . . . --Kleinzach 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was speaking metaphorically :-) I felt two contrasting responses to seeing this list -- walk away, or work on it (hard) to make it into a valuable means of navigation and mechanism for discovery of works (and composers), in which case the criteria for inclusion must be clear and stringent. The normal Wikipedia criterion of notability is relaxed in this list -- notability is defined here as having a WP article, ie all WP articles are notable, all very self-referential. I don't mind having a fully inclusive list of everything on WP, nor one patterned after the significant composers list (ie having articles in every major reference work), but this is a cross-breed. I found this list when adding Lee Hoiby's death date, but his most successful and best known opera wasn't included in the corpus. WP has a single article, for his early work The Scarf, Grove also has just one, for his Summer and Smoke ... At least Hoiby gets into the corpus, Emilio Arrieta is in WP, but his Marina (described as one of the most popular lyric stage works in the Spanish repertoire in the WP composer article) has no article and neither are in the corpus (though both have articles in Grove). Arrieta is lucky compared with Jan Stefani and his Cud mniemany (the first Polish national opera, the best Polish opera of the 18th century, the most popular opera in Poland in the first half of the 19th century and still in the repertoire (Grove)) which count a single redlink between them.

Fix, or walk away? The easy part of fixing would be to add the 50(?), 100(?), 250(?) key works and composers missing here but present in, say, Grove. The harder bit would be agreeing a clear set of objective criteria of what goes in this list, and the near-impossible bit would be removing any fluff. Until that happens, I'll carry on working on articles (and with enthusiasm), but it's not going to be on the basis of anything in this list. Scarabocchio (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the concept - or lack of one. I think it's unique, so whatever it's imperfections there's no alternative resource. Second it's never been designed to be "a valuable means of navigation and mechanism for discovery of works", if you want that see the List of important operas. It's basically a checklist of Wikipedia-notable operas, a roadmap of articles to add to the encyclopedia, originally based on inclusion in Grove. (The basic idea was that if Grove had an article, we would be able to find enough information to justify a Wikipedia article.) Arguably this list might have been kept in article space (like for example the Wagner singer list), but on the other hand 'The opera corpus' does give the general reader an idea of the sheer size of the genre. One thing that you've written above — "notability is defined here as having a WP article" — is incorrect. See all the red links! Potential articles are included!

Obviously it's a work in progress, and depends on input from editors. Regarding Lee Hoiby or any other composer, if an important work is missing, then the thing to do is to add it. (That's the way WP works!) Other editors usually look at composers one by one, start articles as appropriate (using Grove, another source or perhaps a recent recording) and then update the corpus afterwards. For example, I was recently looking at Francesco Bianchi, quite an important composer. I updated his list of works, discovered he was not in the corpus, added him, and then wrote eight start class articles on his main works.

I hope that clarifies what we are doing here. In my view the opera corpus reflects the (obviously imperfect) progress Wikipedia is making in covering opera. This list will be perfect when the coverage of opera here is perfect, not before then.--Kleinzach 02:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

article name

Is this the name of an actual published list, or a poor name for something that should be List of operas?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it meets none of those criteria. Softlavender (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Article title

I have returned the article to its original title, since it was moved without discussion. It is not a "List of notable operas". It is a "List of operas by composer". That latter (List of operas by composer) may be a more appropriate title if The opera corpus is not deemed accurate or clear enough. Another option could be something like List of opera composers and their works. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I originally started this article and called it the The opera corpus to emphasise it's ambitious scope. As Softlavender points out it is a "List of operas by composer" not a "List of notable operas". I would be happy to see it called a "List of operas by composer". I think that's more accurate than a List of opera composers and their works. Kleinzach 10:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

RHaworth, apparently not understanding the history, content, and scope of this article, has now moved the title back to the inaccurate List of notable operas, and move-locked the page. I have alerted him on his talk page that that title is inaccurate. RHaworth, would you at least move the page to the more accurate List of operas by composer, which is agreed upon so far in this thread? Softlavender (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• So you want the list to be at the opera corpus with list of operas by composer and list of notable operas both as redirects pointing to it? Please confirm that this is the case and I will willingly do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please move List of notable operas → List of operas by composer. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)