This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
A note on terminology Gilbert, Sullivan, Carte and other Victorian era British composers and librettists, as well as the contemporary British press and literature, called works of the sort that Gilbert and Sullivan produced "comic operas" to distinguish them from the continental European operettas that they wished to displace. Most of the specialist literature on Gilbert and Sullivan since that time has referred to these works as "operas" (e.g., Jacobs, Preface), though some general books on music prefer "operetta". The Gilbert and Sullivan WikiProject has used the term "opera" consistently throughout the G&S-related articles within its scope.
I have added these to most works - this matches the "main article" links to the individual "Gilbert" and "Sullivan" articles. I am aware that there were in most cases links already there in the first line or two of the section - but this makes it a little more obvious, especially to someone no overly familiar with Wiki - that a more detailed article about each work is in fact accessible at a single click. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't it just add length to the article? I really don't see how "main article" tells anyone more than a plain link. I am concerned that this article will get too long (I'll be adding more info to it as I improve the opera articles). Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Some characters lost (as other links are no longer necessary and can be deleted) and some gained - the nett increase in this case is rather less than your comment above! Of course it doesn't really "tell anyone more than a plain link" - but it is a little more obvious to a Gilbert and Sullivan fan who is NOT a regular Wiki user that the more specific article is there. It is also a convention used in many thousands of other Wiki articles where a section in a "parent" article effectively summarises a "daughter" article treating the topic concerned at greater length. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't feel very strongly about it for now. Since you seem to be interested in G&S, how about working on expanding one of the opera articles? You can use H.M.S. Pinafore and Thespis (opera) as guides to what sorts of information they should contain, since both of these are FA articles. I suggest Mikado, which is approaching its 125th birthday. It would be nice to get it up to FA. Or Pirates. See WP:G&S for information about our project. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
An excellent article. Would it be possible to say something about the audiences and the reception of the operas? What social groups were dominant in the audience? How far was it a mixed class audience, as musical comedy was to be from the 1890s ? Johncmullen1960 (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen statements to the effect that Gilbert was successful in attracting audiences beyond the middle class, especially for Pinafore, but basically the Savoy's audience was middle-class, as compared with, say, the Gaiety Theatre, London audience, that included a strong lower-class following. If you want to do the research, go ahead, it's not a priority for me in this article. You also mentioned a discussion of reception of the operas. Yes, we definitely need to say more about the critical and audience reception, although we already mention that their success was basically unprecedented. Recently, we have been adding more links to contemporary theatre reviews in the articles about the operas themselves. As we continue to improve the other articles in the WP:G&S project, I think the information and references in this article will naturally get better and better. But don't let me stop you from doing research and writing. Also see WP:G&S for more information and to-do lists for the project. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Really not sure about this - it's a pretty neutral word in this context. The "catchyness" of a tune has little to do with its inherent worth - some really awful tunes get stuck in your head all day! If it HAS a favourable connotation then the footnote indicates that Scholes (excellent source) thought Sullivan's melodies were just great (although he doesn't mention their memorability specifically). But surely the fact that many G&S melodies are very "catchy" indeed hardly needs a source. I've reverted the deletion of "memorable" anyway - until this gets a little more airing.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a weasel word, check WP:WEASEL. And if the source doesn't mention memorability surely having it in there constitutes original research and violates WP:NOR, no?--Amaher (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the cite says they're well-crafted and beautiful. It's not much of a stretch to summarize that as "memorable". The article lead is supposed to give an overview of the article (WP:LEAD), and I think it is fair to say that the sum total of what's written about Sullivan's music agrees that it's memorable. Here are just a few sources that call Sullivan's music "memorable" (I got 8,000 hits):
"Memorable" IS indeed listed as a weasel word in WP:WEASEL. I think the word meant is the vaguely positive sense, which has little or nothing to do with the memory. In the case of a melody "memorable" has a very specific and fairly neutral meaning (a synonym might be "catchy") so it isn't really a weasel. The leaves the question of WP:NOR. While the cite doesn't actually mention "memorable" in the specific sense (although it is pretty spot on for the vague sense) I still think to call this "original research" in this context is at best a bit extreme. Splitting weasel hairs perhaps? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)