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!
I'd like to see more quotes from critics and observers on this and other avant garde works. John Simon in particular bemoaned this stuff and was very eloquent in describing why works like this were (and are) killing the American and European theater. JDG 12:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, dive in and start adding stuff, then! However, what the article really needs is basic information on the three sections that haven't been performed in America -- I can't find it anywhere!
I should note that our presentation of critical response to the work should reflect the critical consensus, not a single point of view. Wilson has always been widely scoffed at, but also widely praised. Dybryd 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any reference to the Met's production anywhere. They usually announce their seasons well ahead of time, so the idea of doing a complete production this year seems unlikely. Until we get a source, I'm pulling it. The text read:
On 22nd January, 2007, the New York Metropolitan Opera announced its intention to present a nearly complete version in July of the same year.
I'd love to see it go back in (and I may need to buy plane tickets to NYC for July), but until there's some confirmation, it shouldn't stay in. Dreamword 08:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Stay tuned, then. El Ingles 16:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, did it happen, then? -- megA 21:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The premiere of the full work was cancelled when funding failed to materialize (despite the Olympic Committee's offer of matching funds) and deadlines were not met.
In the documentary "Absolute Wilson", it is said that shortly before the L.A. premiere, the Committee actually withdrew funds (1.2 Million) previously committed, thus causing the project to fail. Any sources for one or the other version? Should it be noted that the committee announced the cancellation of the project without prevoiusly notifying Wilson? -- megA 21:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Support. Labatt's capitalization is correct per WP:CAPS and standard English rules. The article can have a rendered, styled, or stylized note added after the name to explain how it is marketed, if the current spelling is widespread. — the Man in Question(in question) 08:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. OK, guys, here's the situation: I moved this page a couple days ago without comment because I wasn't expecting it to move. That was silly. I should have left a comment regardless. So here's the comment: the unique word styling was an artistic choice made by Robert Wilson, the co-creator of the piece. Therefore it is, in fact, incorrect to label the page "The Civil Wars: A Tree Is Best Measured When It Is Down". A further explanation lies in a footnote on the page: "The eccentric typography of the title is explained by Wilson as a wish to emphasise both the CIVIL nature of the war and the plurality of it." So there it is. CIVIL and S are the only letters to be capitalized - not even the "the" at the beginning is to be capitalized. So don't fear! This page has not been vandalized - it has been enhanced! If you need further proof check out an image of the CD on amazon or Google Images. Cheers! Wikkitywack (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There's no issue with using the styled text within the article, and explainng the reason therein, but article titles are genrally not styled in any fashion (with the noted exception of CamelCase). There's no debate that the artist sytled the title but as a general rule doesn't hold to such styling. See WP:NCM, MOS:MUSIC and MOS:TM and Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD (which is likely the most useful) for direction on naming for music. --Labattblueboy (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Support - per Ucucha. Parsecboy (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Although a student newspaper's review would not typically be notable enough for inclusion, I included these quotes because they were the most substantial critical responses I could find. This strange, never-finished work by a major composer is at an unusual intersection of the notable and the obscure -- I think in this case it's useful to know what the audience response was to the premiere even though the reviewers are not important critics themselves, especially as challenging audience expectation of what an operatic performance should be is a big part of Robert Wilson's style.