Talk:Lulu (opera)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Opera (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


Why and where does this article need additional citations? Hyacinth (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Background: the tag was introduced here (3 May 2008) by Jerome Kohl (talk · contribs). The section "Conception and composition" was introduced here (28 April 2003) by Camembert (talk · contribs). A very similar section was introduced into the German Wikipedia article on 31 July 2008 by FordPrefect42 (talk · contribs). The Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias contain also similar sections.
I agree with the tag {{Refimprove}}; almost all of the section "Conception and composition" could do with some additional references, and the sections "Structure" and "The tone rows" have no references at all. I would also like to see references for the two cast lists presented. As it is, the article relies on a single source, which doesn't seem to carry any particular authority on the subject. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe the referencing has now been sufficiently improved to justify removal of the tag. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Revolution in Paris[edit]

This has always puzzled me: The commune doesnt quite fit into the timeline, does it? Sparafucil (talk) 06:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


I have added a subscript 8 to the percussion. Previously it looked like the only percussion used are timpani. The Universal Edition webpage says percussion8, unfortunately without further details as to which particular instruments are required. Maybe someone who owns a printed score could add them? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Before I saw this note, I removed the 8 assuming it was an errant typo. We could put it back, but I really don't think it will mean anything to anybody. Best. --Kleinzach 04:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the order back to the one I originally used (before another editor turned the list into a table) to reflect the fact that there are more percussion instruments involved, and because harp and piano are not percussion instruments (although Bartok might disagree on the latter). Also, on the Universal Edition web-pages, timpani are always mentioned separately, not under the heading percussion. Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
And, BTW, what do you mean by moving instrumentation to the usual place? Most opera articles I have been consulting have the Instrumentation section right after the roles table, which seems logical to me (you know, first mention the vocal forces, then the instrumental ones). Is there a guideline somewhere? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Let's try to be clear about this. 'Percussion' is not a musical instrument. As the Oxford Dictionary of Music says that it is the "name for a family of instruments . . ". The format for instrumentation sections has been discussed in the past, see here. I don't have strong feelings about what belongs or doesn't belong in the percussion family. (The link above allows for percussion and keyboard/miscellaneous to be listed separately, though I think you will find most articles combine them.) What everybody will agree on - except conceivably one Universal Edition editor - is that timpani is a form of percussion. Also I note the third group (as reverted) need a heading for purely editorial reasons. At the moment it looks as if some text has gone missing.
Opera roles and synopsis are invariably given one after the other because most readers will want to refer to them together. If you look at opera articles on WP you will see that arrangement in the vast majority of cases. If you disagree with this and want to reorder a few thousand articles that's absolutely fine, but please discuss it with the Opera Project first before you start to make sure there is a pro-change consensus. --Kleinzach 16:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with your comments on the content of the section, and have reverted my edit.
Place of the section: I really do not have any strong feelings about this, and I agree that Synopsis always follows Roles in opera articles (the order I also use when creating or editing opera articles), but then again, it looks to me like the vast majority of opera articles do not even have an Instrumentaton section. I consulted Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_styles_and_formats before I added this section, and to my surprise, instrumentation is not even mentioned there, so I added an Instrumentation section in various opera articles in a place I thought was appropriate. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I might also point out that in the article Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), User:Folantin (a highly valued member of the WikiProject Opera) inserted an Instrumentation section between the roles table and the synopsis. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The role table in Pelléas et Mélisande (opera) doesn't explain the relationships of the characters in the usual way (that X is the father of Y, A is the brother of B etc) so IMO the content there is not ideally integrated (quite apart from the instrumentation section dividing the roles from the synopsis). I see you've referred this to the Opera Project, which is good. (BTW Instrumentation section content was not included in the Opera Project style page - presumably because it was already covered by the Classical Music Style Guidelines.) --Kleinzach 00:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

My feeling is that (i) Kleinzach is right in his suggested placing, and that's where I am used to seeing it. I've put some of the longer ones in two or three cols. because of length, but if they are compact, it's fine in one block; (ii) we should formalize this in the Style guildelines, as we've done with others headings which have been agreed to. Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

What a mess results when substituting one's own guesses because the cited source doesnt seem make sense! The "8" seems ambiguous, espcially in light of the "Jazz percussion (3)", but the German version of the UE page spells out "8 Spieler". I've made things more compact on the theory that befuddled organologists can go to other articles, and added the stage band. I dont think orchestration sections call for expansion, and belong with the list of required voices. Sparafucil (talk) 06:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I havnt finished getting it right either: today I looked at the three scores (without wanting to lug them from the library) and found the orchestration lists not totally consistent with one another, and casting grave doubt on the weblink's assertion that third flute doubles piccolo. Have added ellipses till I can fill in more.... Sparafucil (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Performance history section[edit]

This is a bit messy:

  • The second sentence in the first para (about Crosby) duplicates or contradicts (or both) the last sentence of the second para.
  • If the American premiere of the two-act version took place in 1963 at Santa Fe, how come the American premiere (in Dexter's production) of this version took place in 1976-7? Is this not the American premiere but merely the Met premiere?
  • When did the Met first perform the three-act version?
  • --GuillaumeTell 17:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Trope I[edit]

The article says, "Cell z is the basic cell of Lulu and generates Trope I", then we get this image:

Two forms of Trope I, each generated from all even or odd forms of cell z

...followed by a note that "cell z" is also found in Bartok's fourth quartet, and that's it. There's no explanation of the significance of this "trope", nor exactly what "trope" means here (it surely isn't a hexachord since the image apparently only shows two forms of it), nor why we're being shown it twice (the second version a semitone higher than the first), nor what relation it has to the score (I see "cell z" a few times on the first page of the score, but not this entire "trope"). Can anybody throw some light on this? At the moment it seems more confusing than anything. --Camembert (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles consistently list information, such as key and mode, without any explanation or explanation of significance.
I have altered the internal link to trope to be slightly more specific.
Rather than two hexachords, what is shown is three tetrachords (2x6=12, 3*4=12).
Hyacinth (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)