Talk:The Marriage of Figaro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move

In accordance with WP:UE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation, I propose that this article be moved to The Marriage of Figaro. --BaronLarf 13:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

  1. Support both here and across-the-board implementation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera#Operas: original vs English translation. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Viajero | Talk 13:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support -- This is a "no brainer." --Lordkinbote 15:37, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Done -- Viajero | Talk 19:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Staging

Some interesting but problematic material about hte staging of The Marriage of Figaro was cut from Pierre Beaumarchais. It may have copyright issues, and it lacks citation, but it is suggestive of a direction for someone to look into for this article. - Jmabel | Talk 20:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Noted Arias

Why there are 2 Noted Arias sections? Please remove one. 80.108.64.239 09:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Done :) - Jay 09:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

"Literal" Italian

The opening paragraph translates "nozze" as "Marriage (lit. wedding)". This is misleading at best. Wedding may be a slightly more accurate translation but Nozze is in fact a plural noun, and the "LITERAL" translation of Le Nozze is probably something closer to "nuptials." Because it is less than 100% accurate and adds nothing to an understanding of the work, might I suggest that the "literal" alternate translation be stricken from the preamble? 69.178.122.114 08:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree—it should be stricken. Michael Bednarek 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Further support is given by the fact that the title of Beaumarchais' original play, from which Da Ponte translated the title of the libretto, is "Le Mariage de Figaro." And Mariage is undoubtedly French for marriage and not wedding. Calaf (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "mariage" is French for both "marriage" and "wedding". As a result of the Norman invasion, English has numerous examples of pairs of germanic and romance words with slightly different connotations for the same thing, like "middle" and "center", for which there is often only one word in French. The French wikipedia has two photographs labeled "Un mariage en Inde" and "Un mariage en Allemagne en 2005", both of which clearly show what would be described in English as weddings. "Nozze" does mean "wedding", just as "nuptials" does, despite the difference in number inflection. So a correct translation is indeed "The wedding of Figaro" or the more colloquial "Figaro's wedding", not unlike the German, "Figaros Hochzeit".

Since I commented on this on 4 December, I've thought about it further and I now agree with 63.86.92.198's assessment: nozze means wedding and the article should mention that. The traditional English translation of the title using the word marriage is incorrect (or at least confusing, as the play/opera clearly describes the wedding, not the marriage), unless marriage can also mean what Hochzeit means in German. To my surprise, Wiktionary:Marriage suggests just that in its 3rd definition, although I'm not familiar with that use.
This leaves three options: 1) Move the article to the Italian name of the opera (dsicussed before, rightfully rejected); 2) start a movement to change the English title to Figaro's Wedding (unlikely to be successful in the short/medium term); 3) explain the situation (which a former version of this article did, although rather clumsily).
I suggest to reintroduce the explanation that nozze means wedding into the article's lead — I'm just not sure about the wording. Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How about "The traditional English-language title is 'The Marriage of Figaro'. However, a full and more accurate translation of the Italian is 'Figaro's Wedding, or the Day of Madness'."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.86.92.198 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

How many acts?

The opera is conventionally considered to have four acts. However, it is often performed with the last two of these merged into a single third act, particularly when the opera is shortened by the traditional cuts of Marcellina's and Don Basilio's arias. There is strong internal evidence that it was conceived as a two-act opera, in that the conventional first act completely lacks the finale that a proper opera buffa should have, the "finale" of the conventional third act hardly deserves the name, and the opera buffa form originated as a two-act opera performed between the three acts of an opera seria. Michael Kelly ("Ochelli") supports this idea in his Reminiscences. His description of the success of the first performance of Non piu andrai in rehearsal is often quoted: "...Those in the orchestra I thought never would have ceased applauding, by beating the bows of their violins against the music desks." He goes on to write, "The same meed of approbation was given to the finale at the end of the first act", and, "In the sestetto, in the second act..., I had a very conspicuous part, as the stuttering judge." The acts which he names as the first and second are now considered the second and third respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.89.30 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just came back from a performance today. They merged the first 2 acts together and the last 2 together to form 2 apparent acts.

Arbitrary removal of OPERA America's ranking of operas

I have posted the following on the talk page of User talk:Captbaritone:

I suggest that you refer to the DISCUSSION PAGE before arbitrarily removing copy from an article, especially the 20 opera articles which contain this reference to their popularity.
Who are you to determine that is is "uncessary" - and WHY? Justify your position on the Discussion page first and wait for responses.Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Viva-Verdi's objection to the unwarranted removal of that section. In fact, without it, the sentence It is now regarded as a cornerstone of the standard operatic repertoire deserves to be tagged with Template:Who; to avoid being so tagged, I re-added the reference. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing bibliographical entry

There are two refs to a work by a "Solomon", but no corresponding entry in the References section.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of links to reviews of productions of this opera

I see that a link to a Northern Ireland production from February 2008 has been added.

Is there any value in including reviews of productions - as worthy as they may be - in what could become an everlasting series of links? And, if they are included, what criteria should be employed to determine their value? Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the reasons for removal of this link by User:HowardBerry, I support this revert. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)FelixY817 04:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

More about the music

We need to try to find more about the music, since that is what Mozart mostly did.


Edit 02/23/2006: The Mass in C K.317 was written before 'Le Nozze di Figaro' K.492, so Mozart has not recyled the aria 'Dove sono' for this mass, but it is the other way around: he used the music from the mass in the opera.


COMMENT BY SOMEONE ELSE

The music is arguably Mozart's best. Please say so.


The article mentions that not including thematic material in the overture is in keeping with the adult Mozart's practice, but the opening of the overture to Don Giovanni (written just after Figaro) is lifted pretty much wholesale from the finale. I'm going to change this section unless someone has an objection. MattHanlon 06:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And furthermore, the tune to which the words "Così fan tutte" are sung in the eponymous opera also appears in the overture. And the three chords that represent Sarastro's temple or the brotherhood or something-or-other also appear in the Magic Flute overture.
As for Figaro, the diddle-diddle-diddle-diddle "scurrying" coda to the overture can be heard under the final chorus in the opera. --GuillaumeTell 11:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed the entire 'Music' section is scattershot. I suggest a wholesale revision. I intend to eliminate some trivia -- the Coldstream Guards have no place here -- and hopefully introduce some sourced opinions on the significant contribution to Western music that 'Figaro' constitutes. MattHanlon 09:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think more information is needed about the name of the songs, since some of them are noted here by one of their important verses. However, they are named differently by albums with the music. For example, the song Contessa, perdono as stated here is referred to officially as "Gente! Gente," or something close to that. The only way I connected the 2 titles was by reading the libretto. (10/02/09) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.95.109.189 (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the first line that determines the title of a number. For the case you mention, that's the Act IV finale which is "No. 29" whose "official" name is "Finale: Pian pianin le andro piu presso". Its about sixteen minutes long so most recordings break it up into multiple tracks and they name those tracks after the first line of each track. "Gente! Gente!" is a popular place to make that break. The NMA link at the bottom of the article has a table of contents that contains a list of all of the numbers in the opera.DavidRF (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Non più andrai quoted in The Magic Flute

I can't site a source and don't remember what part of the opera it is in, but I do remember hearing it in The Magic Flute in a similar context as in Don Giovanni. CH52584 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CH52584 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not in the score; singer may have been clowning SingingZombie (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
At one point in act 2 the libretto says Tamino plays the flute, but the score does not specifies what he plays. Usually he repeats the flute tune from act 1, but somebody may have played "non piu andrai" instead as a joke. (In a similar situation in a FIGARO performance I saw , Cherubino ad-libbed the first line of DON GIOVANNI's Champange Aria).

More on the role of Susanna

Due to its length/endurance and tessitura, I have read and heard in more than one source that Susanna is the hardest soprano role in the literature. Is this noteworthy enough to merit inclusion? 69.178.122.114 09:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's kind of subjective; but if it can be cited from a serious source, I suppose it can be included. Michael Bednarek 09:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
My $0.02: Not a chance! She's not even the most difficult MOZART soprano. Sure Susanna is long and demanding but there's nothing particularly difficult to sing in it, unless you are really a lower soprano trying to sing above your range, in which case you have only yourself to blame. Konstanze in THE ABDUCTION FROM THE SERAGLIO is only half as long, but easily three times more difficult. Fiordiligi also is much more difficult than Susanna--F requires true coloratura-power AND theatre-filling richness, and it has all those long jumps from top-register to bottom in "Come scolio" (I read Mozart wrote it for a soprano friend who liked to show off her register-switching.) Also (if that's not enough), F is always the absolute center of attention; everyone else in the opera is just accompaniment relative to her, musically and dramatically. (This is why Cosi is my least-favorite of the Big Five--it's so heavily centered on the one character. And it's so damm GIRLY! Zero testosterone. After I listen to it I have to go watch boxing, or switch to Act 2 of SIEGFRIED, or read something by Norman Mailer. But I digress.) And you say you're talking about the ENTIRE SOPRANO LITERATURE??? One word: Lulu. SingingZombie (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Figaro -- bass or baritone?

Hello. Recent edits have changed this from bass to bass-baritone again. This change happens quite frequently so I figured I'd add a comment here. The score *clearly* says "Basso" and not "baritone", yet today it is mostly modern baritones that sing the role. How should we designate this so that it doesn't keep getting changed and reverted. Should we mark it as Bass in the table and then add an asterisk with a note below the table about how modern baritones often sing it?DavidRF (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that is the best way to deal with the situation. Similar remarks have been put in some other cast lists, reducing these "improvements". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me chime in, since I'm one of the guilty parties who has been trying to instigate "bass-baritone":

1. Figaro is NOT a true-bass role according to contemporary parlance, and you need to say so. Would you go hear Martti Talvela, or Gottlob Frick, or Kurt Moll, or Matti Salminen, or Hans Sotin, or Boris Christoff, or Plinio Clabassi, or Shalyapin, play him? No, BECAUSE those are true basses.

2. The meaning of "bass-baritone" has also evolved. Nowadays every bass who ever essays a higher role like the Dutchman, calls himself a bass-baritone. In fact, Figaro and Leporello are archtypical mozartian bass-baritone roles, according to its meaning TODAY. In collections of music for singing students, one finds Osmin's and Sarastro's and Bartolo's arias in the bass books, and Figaro's and Leporello's in bass-baritone books and SOMETIMES in bass books as well.

3. I would suggest "Basso-buffo", but Bartolo is often so described and Figaro's voice type has to be distinguished from Bartolo's. How about calling Figaro a "Basso-buffo" and Bartolo simply bass? (It's more fun when Bartolo is played seriously anyway.)

4. Another possible description of Figaro's voice-type: "lyric bass". Or, if you're willing to take a liberty, how about "young bass"?

5. It may not be necessary to point out that baritones often sing Figaro; these days everyone seems to be singing out of their ranges as much as they can. Part of the reason is studio technology makes it less necessary to remain comfortable throughout the piece. Also, people are totally name-happy, buying for celebrity singers, rather than appropriate singers, in the lead roles. Whatever the reason, this trend has produced some real whoppers--Nicolai Ghiaurov's clumsy and shouty recording as Don Giovanni, Ferruccio Furlanetto's feeble attempt to portray King Phillip II (the character is weak but he's supposed to be able to fake strength convincingly), and Jan-Hedrik Rootering's messy, overwhelmed Wotan. (A few basses like Josef Greindl had the ability to sing beyond their ranges and that was fine, but now people seem to think it's obligatory.)

SingingZombie (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All this is original research until it's referenced by reliable sources. In that light, the consensus currently is to use the designations come scritto. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's original research; that's why it's here on the talk page in an effort to figure out the desired format, and not in the article! Gosh, I've been putting "basso-buffo" in all over the place, in an effort to distinguish among the different TYPES of basses (perhaps the column-heading should be "Vocal range" rather than "Voice type"?) I'll try to recall those and root them out. Just for the record, I would argue that "Basso-Buffo" really is a voice type in itself (like "heldentenor"), high for a bass but not shouty or brassy on top; rather, head-voicy, and sub-Wagnerian in volume, pitched for Bartolo in Rossini's BARBER or the Animal-Trainer in LULU. Performers like Walter Berry, Wladimiro Ganzarroli, Max Proebstl, Benno Kusche, Franco Calabrese, Enzio Dara. Otto Edelmann is an example of a bass who played buffo roles but was most definitely not a basso-buffo; rather he was a thunderer with an exceptionally brassy top and a comic manner. Basso-buffos don't sing Wotan; he did. Aage Haugland is another example, not a basso-buffo but a power-bass who often played buffo roles. Basso-buffos don't sing Prince Ivan Khovansky, either. SingingZombie (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All the above and various disputes that have arisen elsewhere indicate that the best policy is to use for each role only the following voice-types, as supported by members of the WP Opera Project: soprano, mezzo-soprano, contralto, treble, counter-tenor, tenor, baritone, bass-baritone, bass. In cases where a role fits (or is or has been performed by) more than one of the above, then some formulation such as "mezzo-soprano, sometimes contralto or soprano" (for Rosina) or "tenor or baritone" (for Pelléas) or "bass, bass-baritone or baritone" (for Figaro). Attempts to classify roles more minutely (e.g. "coloratura soprano", "Jugendlicher Heldentenor", "baryton-martin" and indeed "basso-buffo") just lead to futile arguments. --GuillaumeTell 22:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey, don't leave out "tenor-molto-squillo"! SingingZombie (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

later uses of music

It seems to me that parts of the overture of this opera were recycled into the first movement of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (maybe not as direct quotes, but some of the devices were re-used). Is that a known observation (i.e. sourceable) worth mentioning in the article? 67.117.145.149 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. (for whatever that is worth :-)) Something like that would to be sourced. Also, that would be something more applicable to adding to the Eine Kleine Nachtmusik article rather than mentioning here.DavidRF (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Uses of MoF in popular culture

I disagree with tagging this as a list of miscellaneous info. Surely a general-interest article should tell the new reader where he/she may have heard the music already.

Having said that, there's no need to include the detail about the actor in THE RUNNING MAN being a trained opera singer. It's already a pretty obscure use of the music, doesn't merit more than one sentence. SingingZombie (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Problems with "Musical Style"

This section hardly presents a substantial analysis of the musical style in The Marriage of Figaro. First of all minor key is not necessarily related to sorrow, anger or anxiety. Even if it was, such a point is not a strict discussion of the music, because pure music recognizes no association tonalities or harmonies with feelings or other extra-musical ideas. The following section "Critical Discussion" contains much more accurate analysis of the techniques and style of this work. The Musical Style section should place Figaro in context with preceding and succeeding works, and use this as a basis for information on the musical elements of form, orchestration, etc. used in the this opera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cadmus Amadeus (talk • contribs) 22:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Does "Cosa sento" echo the overture?

We currently have a footnote that says:

(A motif from the overture appears to the Count's words Parta, parta il damerino! in bars 101–103 and 105–107 of the terzetto Cosa sento! in act 1.)

I took out my score and looked. It's not that easy to see the connection. The closest match I can find to these bars of Cosa sento in the overture seem to be bars 123-129, perhaps also 35-39. These seem to be a rather loose match, enough to be true by accident (surely there are plenty of passages in music of the Classical era that have this sort of rising bass line). Am I missing something? And if not, might it be sensible to take this comparison out? Opus33 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that such a reading may seem a bit far fetched and wouldn't object to its removal (although there are of course many reliable comments on the independent nature of the overture, and pointing out a connection is remarkable and noteworthy). History:
It was me who provided a reference on 28 September 2009 for a statement which was introduced by User:Scottandrewhutchins on 2 November 2008. I can't remember how I accessed the reference (Steptoe 1990, p. 170) – from a library, through a Jstor review, or online – but I'm sure I did. In any case – if the statement is challenged as being insufficiently sourced, it could be removed; I don't think the article as a whole would suffer. OTOH, I'd like to read the thoughts of some other editors on this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(This is probably not the way to add a comment. Sorry, very unfamiliar with this.) I just looked at the passage from Steptoe's book. I believe this is just a simple misreading. Steptoe is saying that "Parta, parta il damerino" recalls the opening of the Trio, not the overture. Later in the passage he says that the recitativo passage in the middle of the Trio is accompanied by "bustling figures ... reminiscent of the Overture". Nowhere is the claim made that material from the overture is quoted in the Trio. (Of course, Basilio's "Così fan tutte le belle" is the basis for the entire overture to Così fan tutte! But that's a separate issue.) --Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.163.55 (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Terzetto:
{ \key bes \major \set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t \tempo 2 = 88 \relative c' { r2 \slurUp d16( ees f ees d ees f ees d4) } }
Overture:
{ \key d \major \time 2/2 \set Score.tempoHideNote = ##t \tempo 2 = 132 \relative c' { \slurUp d8( cis d cis) d4 r } }
You are right: it's obvious that the terzetto's bars 101–103 and 105–107 are a repeat of the figure stated repeatedly at the terzetto's beginning from bars 5–10 and have nothing to do with the overture. As for the "reminiscence" from the overture in the terzetto's recitative section: well, yes, the orchestra plays a run of 16th notes (d e-flat f e-flat d e-flat f e-flat d) which is double the speed and twice the number of notes and in the opposite direction of the very beginning of the overture (d c-sharp d c-sharp d). Frankly, I think that's pretty weak and the claim should be removed from the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Michael and Jeremy. I've taken out the evidently ill-judged claim. (Perhaps overkill: I also took out the claim that there are *no* echoes in the overture; perhaps it could back in with a reference source.) Opus33 (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Cherubino casting

I removed a reference to Cherubino being cast as a countertenor. As far as I can tell this kind of casting is quite rare, and in my opinion is basically a stunt. Also thought the wording was clumsy and out of context. MattHanlon 15:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree--Cherubino played by a man is always disasterous. The countertenor voice has too much depth, too much inherent dignity, for Cherubino. What's next, a countertenor playing Octavian in DER ROSENKAVALIER??? Please, no. SingingZombie (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article on the original play says that "Cherubin" was played by a woman even there. Beaumarchais said the part was too difficult to give to a boy performer. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Figaro in the movies

I have added a section on the use of music from Figaro in movies--TRADING PLACES and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

That's an unnecessary section in this article. The role of The Marriage of Figaro is mentioned and explained in the articles about those films, which is how it should be. Listing them here amounts to WP:TRIVIA. Further, such a section here acts as a honey pot for further indiscriminate additions, e.g. the use in The Sopranos, Mad Men, The Running Man, and elsewhere. I suggest to remove that section, again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well feel free if you feel that way, but I disagree. If you look at the reviews of recordings of Figaro at Amazon.com, you will see that there are listeners who first encountered the opera by hearing its music in these films, and have become fans of the opera. The occurrence of this music in movies is notable, IMHO. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You'll find that Wikipedia's requirements to establish notability are a bit higher than user reviews at Amazon. BTW, the additional link you added to The Running Man is defective: that's a disambiguation page, not the 1987 film. Further, the section also goes against WP:PROSE. Taken together, the 4 guidelines cited strongly suggest to remove that section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Michael, at least in the way it was presented—a trivia list with no indication of significance and very poor referencing. I see it's now been removed by another editor. It's possible to write a section about Figaro's use in film which does tell us something about the opera itself and its music, as opposed to something about the films in which it was used. But it needs to be written in prose and referenced to scholarly works, e.g. Opera as Soundtrack (2013). Ashgate Publishing. Voceditenore (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of the infobox removed during image discussion

  • Support restoration of the infobox about the opera, because we have a navbox at the bottom. I would prefer an image which gives an idea of a production at Mozart's time. See also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Gerda, I personally think that discussion should be in another thread. This thread is actually about the Semperopera images and Gallery (which have been removed per the above consensus). This thread is thus mislabeled; someone should probably re-label it appropriately and then start your infobox request in a different thread. Softlavender (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree. I've changed the header title and made it Level 2. Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd support re-adding the infobox here. This is what it looked like. The quote that was originally in Gerda's comment ("I personally use infobox opera on all the articles I write and expand (in conjunction with navigation footers), and consider it highly preferable to the old vertical navboxes") is actually from me, but was made in an entirely different context. In any case, the box was removed by Opus33 on the basis that "we should not be introducing an infobox without consensus; operas entries generally don't have them." I just want to point out that since {{Infobox opera}} was developed, it is now used in nearly 150 opera articles, including all of Verdi's operas. Voceditenore (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support adding/restoring infobox. Montanabw(talk) 17:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support restoring the infobox per Voceditenore, an obvious improvement to the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Indifferent, but if there is to be an infobox, then please let it be of the same non-excessive content and extent of the one removed, and with an illustration that will bring consensus.--Smerus (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: That infobox is misleading/incorrect. The opera isn't based on "Pierre Beaumarchais"; it's based on Le Mariage de Figaro. Softlavender (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly so (I couldn't recall the wording of the previous, usolicited, infobox) - let the infobox - if there is to be one - be both concise and accurate.--Smerus (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The Marriage of Figaro
Opera by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Early 19th-century engraving depicting Count Almaviva and Susanna in Act 3
Native title
Le nozze di Figaro
LibrettistLorenzo Da Ponte
LanguageItalian
Based onLe Mariage de Figaro
by Pierre Beaumarchais
Premiere
1 May 1786 (1786-05-01)
Burgtheater, Vienna

To better see what we discuss: here's the removed infobox with the following changes: reference to play, {{lang}} for the Italian and French title, italics for that, link to historic the Burgtheater which is not today's. Image to be discussed, I took the one I found, but made it smaller for this talk. - {{infobox opera}} was designed intentionally to always be concise ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support infobox, although I'd add a linebreak before the word "by" so it looks and reads better. Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with both Smerus and Softlavender, the box needs to be both correct and concise. Frankly, I'd leave the "by Pierre Beaumarchais" out completely. The link to the base play is more than sufficient. The play's author is clutter. In this case, the "based on" parameter is OK to use as the opera is quite unambiguously based on that play. But I often leave it out when the sources are ambiguous, multiple, or at most simply an inspiration. PS I've put the image size in Gerda's sample back to what it would actually look like in situ. The extra space it takes up is minimal given that the whole box is pasted here anyway. Voceditenore (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
    • On this point I disagree with Voce. I think it's important to have Beaumarchais's name in the infobox if we're going to fill out the "Based on" parameter -- this is standard operating procedure for all "Based on" parameters for all media types and art forms, and besides, the two titles are so similar that having Le Mariage de Figaro without the author is confusing for the reader (not to mention the actual title of the play is something a bit different but too long in my opinion). I don't consider this clutter at all -- the infobox is pretty bare compared to most I've seen. Softlavender (talk) 09:07, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
      • It seems to me that mention of the play (with its hyperlink) is sufficient. Anyway this is the maximum info the box should contain imo without becoming unwieldy and otiose. I await suggestions for image. Btw 'native title' looks strange - it's not native English. 'Original title', maybe? or 'Italian title'? ---Smerus (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment: NOT listing the author of the identically titled play that the opera is based on merely confuses the reader and forces them to actually click the link to find out what in the heck Le Mariage de Figaro refers to, and who wrote it. That's not fair to the reader. Every single infobox that I am aware of, such as Template:Infobox film, requires (for obvious reasons) that the author of the source material be listed. The infobox opera should as well, for obvious reasons. I fail to see why exactly seven short lines – 20 words total – is considered "clutter" or "unwieldy and otiose". Either have an infobox or not, but don't have a confusing and unhelpful one. Those three extra words make all the difference to the reader, and little (15%) difference to the infobox. The reader should always be the basis we make our decisions on on Wikipedia, not our personal idiosyncratic preferences. Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The infobox as it appears at this moment is unobjectionable. What I anticipate is an unhappy future for it: editors whom we are too busy to revert will add fields like "Number of major characters", "Prominent filmed versions", "Key", "Most important arias", and so on. This is why even sensible infoboxes are not sensible from a long-term perspective.
    No need to engage me in debates about this. I've made my forecast and it can be checked in the future. Opus33 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
    • As shown above, more than 150 operas have an infobox, some for more than two years, for example Bluthochzeit. Extra parameters of your amusing kind could only be added per the template and its talk. I recently wrote an article do not fear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I support the addition of an infobox, as it will provide a simple overview of salient points for the convenience of our readers; and make them machine-readable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the addition of an infobox. To those few objectors from WP:WikiProject Opera, I strongly urge you to abandon your futile quest against infoboxes both here and elsewhere on opera related articles. It's divisive and ultimately an unfruitful exercise. As the creator of Wikipedia:Disinfoboxes in 2008, I have never been an infobox lover, and I still find the state of many infoboxes less than ideal. That said, there has been a clear shift in overall consensus for infoboxes wikipedia wide, including opera related articles. This is a battle that can't and won't be won, and a prudent philosophy to take is "if you can't beat them join them". Best to be pragmatic and take a proactive stance in designing inoffensive infoboxes on the articles you choose to edit. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Images

I have moved the huge gallery of images from the 2015 Semperoper Dresden production out of the synopsis to its own section. Readers should not have to scroll past all these images to get to the actual synopsis. I have also replaced the image in the infobox with one more apt than this one. Voceditenore (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Why, in heavens sake, are pictures of an opera so disturbing that they have to be removed more or less. Opera is a Gesamtkunstwerk and you should not and never delete the visual part of it. Firstly it is an integral part of the opera, secondly it narrates the story much better then words. I am flabbergasted about this lack of understanding and this disrespect toward the photographers. --Meister und Margarita (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC) We should be grateful that we finally can use pics from great opera houses from all over Europe.
That gallery is a distraction in the synopsis section. It doesn't in any way illustrate the plot; those images could be from any number of operas. That production is not particularly noteworthy; the Semperoper is a magnificent building, but the company is a provincial outfit, a dime a dozen in Germany. The accompanying text violates several style guidelines and mentioning the production staff adds nothing. It should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you haven't been at Semperoper for quite a while. Chief conductor there is Christian Thielemann who is highly respected worldwide (Bayreuth, London, New York, Paris, Salzburg and Vienna). I know that you don't like pictures, but an opera is also a visual event and Peralta's journeys to several opera houses have been supported by Wikimedia.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
It's completely irrelevant to this discussion, but I've been to the Semperoper in 2013. Thielemann's deserved reputation as a conductor doesn't lift their opera productions above normal German Stadttheater level, and he doesn't conduct Figaro. You forgot to explain how these pictures illustrate this opera and why this production is noteworthy. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Of course I agree that the Stadttheater discussion lead to nowhere, but don't forget you spoke disrespectfully of Dresden being a dime a dozen. This is simply not true. Dresden ranks second in Germany and 9th worldwide, see: [1]. And the Semperoper since 2013 is coproducer of all scenic productions at the Salzburg Easter Festival. Somehow I have the feeling You oppose every of my proposals or my changes. In the field of Opera I can't take any steps without being attacked or reverted by You. This production is noteworthy because of its playfulness and brightness stimulating the whole ensemble to sängerischen Höchstleistungen (quote, see as follows):
  • eine[r] faszinierende[n] Melange aus Mittsommernachtstraum und Endspiel (Online Musik Magazin)
  • Wie es scheint, hat die lustvolle Atmosphäre von Oper und szenischer Umsetzung das gesamte Ensemble [ ] spielfreudig mitgerissen und zu sängerischen Höchstleistungen angesteckt. (NMZ)
  • The production was invited to the Savonlinna Opera Festival (Musik heute)--Meister und Margarita (talk) 10:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Just for the sake of factual accuracy: the city ranking mentioned above is based on the number of opera performances per year according to the Operabase statistics. With all due respect to Semperoper, it doesn't say anything about the artistic quality of its productions. I'm not into rankings, but in case somebody is interested, according to Opernwelt the best German opera houses this year are Frankfurt and Mannheim (see this page). I was also unable to find English, French or Italian reviews of the Dresden Le nozze production, which makes me suspect that it didn't garner much attention abroad. Again, this doesn't say anything decisive about the artistic quality, but a gallery on Wiki should be directed at a potentially broad audience, and the Dresden Le nozze does not seem to satisfy this criterion. And then of course there remains the question of appropriateness of a gallery in the synopsis. ParideVezzoso (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

By the way: The director Johannes Erath has been invited to direct Un ballo in maschera at the Bavarian State Opera in Munich, the conductor will be Zubin Mehta. The production will also been shown at the Munich Opera Festival in 2016.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

It is highly misleading and distracting to head the synopsis of this (or any) opera with a gallery of pictures from a production, particularly a 'nothing special' production like the one involved here. This smacks more of an attempt at promotion than an attempt to provide a useful and readable article - as does the citation above of critic's comments and the details of the director's work schedule. M&M's 'arguments' are simply variations on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT. We get the message that M&M is fully in love with the Dresden Opera but that does not make his/her contributions to this article automatically inviolate. If you want to discuss the Semperoper do it in the Semperoper article. Please remove this gallery - preferably out of the article, but at least out of the synopsis. --Smerus (talk) 09:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: A Gallery of images belongs at the bottom of an article per standard Wikipedia practice. There are other, historical, images already in the article which illustrate the body text adequately. (2) The images in the Gallery are currently too large in my opinion, counter to normal Wikipedia practice. At the size they are currently at, they end up awkwardly on two lines on anything smaller than a 14-inch viewing window in standard view, at least on my 19-inch 5:4 computer monitor. They need therefore to be reduced in size, in my opinion. Right now they are at 250px wide, which is larger than even body-text images should ideally be. Softlavender (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC) ADDENDUM: I don't think the images add anything to the article; to my mind they add nothing to the reader's comprehension and are a distraction to the article. I'd personally prefer that they be removed entirely. The photos of the production aren't that great and the production design, costuming, and direction isn't that great; the images are certainly not particularly revelatory. No reason that I can see to retain them. Per standard practice, just because an image exists on Commons does not mean it should be in a Wikipedia article. Softlavender (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Coming a bit late, but... I could see using one or two of those images, but these are of a production that uses a minimalist, stylised set, and, as such, contain far less information for viewers than they would otherwise. I could see using one of them in, say, the Act III plot summary (though it'd be replaceable with an image that had a more traditional set), but, as they don't actually show locations, they aren't suitable for giving an overview of the opera's plot. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and gallery images

It has been agreed upon that Info Boxes may be added as soon as appropriate images are available. Due to the generous admission of Semperoper to photo rehearsals we are now able to procure very beautiful images from a stage production of the opera. As this opera is by Mozart but not dedicated to Mozart, an image of a real life performance seems much more appropriate then the image of the composer. I kindly request that no alteration takes place unless a vast majority disagrees with the pic in the Info Box. Best regards --Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Where was such an agreement reached? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
There is none. Having said that I am in favour of an infobox, but with a more apt image closer to the time and way the opera was originally performed, e.g. [2]. I am also in favour of judicious use of images from modern productions within the text —opera is a living art form.
However, Meister und Margarita, the gallery is completely over the top. It gives undue weight to one particular and not particularly notable production and violates several aspects of Wikipedia:Image use policy (undue weight, forced image sizes, unhelpful captions, unhelpful position, using images as decoration, etc.) I strongly suggest you read it. Simply because images are available, is no reason to jam as many as possible into an article. You have consistently reverted a number of editors to try to get your way. Now please discuss this with respect to the image use policy page and acknowledging the objections of other editors rather than simply riding roughshod over them. Given that you have restored that wildly inappropriate gallery over the objections of several editors, I have at least added subheadings so the reader can find what they are actually looking for in a synopsis. I guarantee you it is not a huge gallery of random images from a random production. Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the Semperoper images per all the reasons given by Voceditenore, and per my reasons given in the separate section above (which I can repeat here if necessary). Softlavender (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal of gallery as per my comments in the above section. Also support use of more generic/close to origin image in infobox. --Smerus (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal of non-notable production that is not especially illustrative of common performance practice or of any given significant moment in the opera. Meister, do you have some kind of financial conflict of interest here? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removal, per all the excellent reasons given. Also, we should not be introducing an infobox without consensus; operas entries generally don't have them. Opus33 (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • See also in this context a similar sort of dispute (with the same protagonist) here. Is there some sort of crusade going on here to favour particular productions/photographers? Is this something about "Wikimedia is covering a part of the travel expenses of the two photographers" - is the insinuation that if this is so, the photographs must be displayed? Are we going to have similar contentions over every opera which Wikimedia subsidised photographers have photographed, or where directors/opera houses favoured by M&M are involved? The criteria for illustrations to articles - as explained by editors here, and by User:Opus33 in the Mozart talk page - must be in the context of the articles, not in the context of the photographers/opera houses/opera directors with which they are associated.--Smerus (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The long story short is that, if it's a common opera, it's very hard to justify using a production with minimalist sets as our primary way of introducing the opera. A photograph of the production can add to it in several ways: It could show a notable production, it could show the locations the acts and scenes take place in well, good costuming and a well-chosen moment to take the picture could make a key scene of the opera instantly apparent, and other such things. However, this group of photos don't seem to do any of these particularly well. The production is a modern production that probably won't be remembered in 30 years. The sets are minimalist, removing all possibility of gaining value there. The Act III is probably the best at portraying a scene - and thus might pass muster for now - but it's not a particularly important scene, and, again, no sets. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Setting

I think User:Opus33 has done a great job summarizing the plot in a single sentence of the lead. I wonder if we can supplement that sentence by restoring the brief description of the setting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

What would mentioning "Seville" add to the understanding? Would the comedy/drama be any different if it were set anywhere else? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Setting provides a backdrop for the action. It explains the costumes, the scenery, and the customs. Think about setting not just as factual information but as an essential part of a story's mood and emotional impact. This opera was set in Spain during the 17th century. I don't see any problem mentioning that in the lead. (Nor do I see any problem giving interested readers multiple versions of the overture.) Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

all in major keys except the F minor aria

Would be more interesting if it were true: the duet at the start of Act 3 is in A minor. Certainly it ends in A major, but that is nothing unusual, since by Classical standards minor keys are inherently more dissonant and demand resolution – and if the harmonic resolution to the parallel major is absent, it must be compensated for by added simplicity in form or rhythm. Besides, it starts by using C major (III) as a secondary key and recasting the material presented in it later in A major (I), just as it should. Double sharp (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The few opening bars (I count 9) sung by the Count in A minor ("Crudel! perchè finora farmi languir così?") don't make this duet a minor-key number. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes it does when there is a clear movement to its dominant substitute C major (b.9–10) and back to the tonic A minor (b. 19–28). Double sharp (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the paragraph about Barbarina's aria is awkward and unhelpful. However, pointing to "Crudel! perchè finora" as a further example of a minor-key number is similarly troublesome. First, the closure at bar 28 (E G♯ B) doesn't strike me as A minor. And, as you observed, the rest (bars 20–72) is in A major. How do you suggest the section "Musical style" should be modified? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, I would probably take out the whole sentence, as it is both disputable and of questionable relevance (and the site it references is absolutely not a reliable source). It would be more interesting to have a section on the tonal planning of the opera, instead of just looking at things locally like this. Double sharp (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
1. I personally feel that "Crudel!" is in A major but it's only my intuition and not a very strong one.
2. I agree with both MB and DS that it would be fine to cut back this paragraph.
3. I like DS's idea of including a section on tonal planning. The only thing I've read about this topic is Charles Rosen's The Classical Style, which I found very interesting (Double sharp has mentioned this work in other contexts, and it is briefly quoted in this article).
4. Just for curiosity, I add that I was recently involved in a similar dispute about the first movement of the Haydn 104th ([3]), which likewise has a big minor-key opening section ending on a V chord. The Haydn is obviously in major, much more clearly so than Mozart's duet. Opus33 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
5. I don't really see the value of the section that this sentence is in. Also, I dispute its validity. There is a good deal of minor in the opera-the fandango, and significant sections of Basilio's aria come to mind. I don't think that it is helpful to state that only one number is "in" a minor key. (i.e. start and end in same minor key) This leads the reader to think incorrectly that there is no minor music in the opera. I have removed the entire section about "musical style" and moved the interesting fact about the 2 horns of cuckoldry to a more appropriate location in the article under critical discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.221.120 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Count 'no longer in love'?

I don't think it's accurate to describe the Count as no longer being in love with the Countess (this is in the character list). In fact, I would contest that the Count is very much in love with the Countess. The final scene of forgiveness and togetherness should be enough to justify my deletion of 'no longer in love with Rosina' from the Count's entry in the character list.

FractaL 23:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The secret of the Count is: his principle motivating emotion is FEAR. The anger and horniness are both outgrowths of his fundamental fear. He believes, on some level, that if he cannot maintain his authority by boning all the girls, his people will rise up and kill him. That's why every obstacle makes him disproportunately angry. SingingZombie (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Be aware that you are sometimes replying to things that are three years old or more. Many of the users requests from that long ago have been resolved or no longer reply.DavidRF (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't bother me; I'm writing for anyone interested enough to read the exchange. SingingZombie (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
@FractaL Of course the "Contessa, perdono" sounds like he is in love, but that is only superficial. Mozart’s music is famous for telling more about the characters then the pure libretto, and the music in this piece shows that his apology is quite doubtful. In fact, in the third part of the Figaro-trilogy by Beaumarchais both the Count and the Countess betrayed each other and are not very interested to one another. During "Contessa, perdono" he was ashamed in front of all the people, maybe it was just self-pity. And don’t forget, he apologizes a few times in the opera, and afterwards he is still the same man hunting for other women. It’s still a satire against the upper nobility and their behaviour. --DerFigaro (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong information about "Venite, inginocchiatevi"

Please excuse my bad english! In the article it says: They proceed to attire Cherubino in girl's clothes (aria of Susanna: Venite, inginocchiatevi – "Come, kneel down before me"), and Susanna goes out to fetch a ribbon.

It’s true that stage productions usually show Cherubino getting dressed as a girl in this aria, but that’s wrong. If you read the stage directions in the score and the libretto, you can clearly see, that Susanna only combs Cherubino’s hair ("Lo prende pel mento e lo volge a suo piacere") and shows him how to behave and to walk like a woman in this aria. After the aria, the Countess instructs Susanna to bring a new ribbon as well as her dress for the page (Countess: “Un altro nastro prendi insieme col mio vestito”). So Cherubino doesn’t get dressed during the aria, and he doesn’t get dressed after it! Both Susanna and the Countess want to dress him, but then the Count knocks at the door. Due to my bad English I don’t want to change anything, but I want to make a suggestion for that part:

Susanna takes off Cherubino’s cloak. She begins to comb his hair and teaches him to behave and walk like a woman (Aria of Susanna: Venite, inginocchiatevi – “Come, kneel down before me”). Then she leaves the room through a door at the back to get the dress for Cherubino, taking his cloak with her. --DerFigaro (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Please don't worry about your English - it looks perfectly good to me. Also this seems correct. Earlier in the recitative, the Countess says "Finiam le ragazzate: or quelle maniche oltre il gomito gli alza, onde più agiatamente l'abita gli si adatti." This seems to be the Countess instructing Susanna to alter the sleeves of Cherubino's clothes (he has only taken his cloak off) so that the Countess's dress, which is yet to be fitted, will fit him properly. There is another clue in the libretto: in Susanna's aria she gives instructions about Cherubino's "colletto" and "ciglio" (collar and hem). Perhaps these two terms relate not to a dress he is wearing at the time, which some directors might think, but his own clothes worn under the cloak he has already removed. What we certainly don't have is any positive evidence in the score that Cherubino puts on a dress during the aria, and at this point I agree with taking all statements to that effect-the current wording doesn't mention a dress but it is implied-out of the article.
I also sampled a selection of five stagings from my personal collection and from Youtube. In three of the five stagings, Cherubino does not put on a dress during the aria. Of the other two stagings, one is a radical one that isn't trying to be faithful to the libretto, while the other shows Cherubino putting on a skirt but not a full dress. Syek88 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Syek88 Thanks for the compliment :) You are right, Susanna sings: “Più alto quel colletto, Quel ciglio un po’ più basso.” which can be translated as “Your head a little higher, your eyes a fraction down“. Ciglio means “eyelashes”, Colletto is harder to translate, it means something like “neck”, but you must not translate those lyrics literally.
About the different stagings: of course not every director let them dress Cherubino as a girl, some of them are quite modern and only put on lipstick and powder on his face, or put on suspenders, high heels or a bra and stuff like that, not necessarily a dress. I think in a summary it is important to describe the actual events in the opera, not interpretative approaches, even if they are quite common. --DerFigaro (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a stab at implementing this (see article).
While this topic is under discussion, I would like to raise a general point: I feel that the libretto should be the primary source for our summaries of the content of an opera, and that directorial alterations (even those sanctioned by tradition) should be mentioned specifically as deviations from the libretto. (These include alterations of the action, deleted or changed spoken text, reordered numbers, etc.) This strikes me as more encyclopedic. So in the present case, what DerFigaro noted would be sensible to put highlight, with Syek's material as amplification (perhaps a footnote?). Prioritizing the libretto is not currently a policy at the Wikiproject Opera page, but perhaps it could be. Opus33 (talk) 16:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the change - it looks good. I completely agree with not relying on directorial interpretations as authoratitative and doubt they should be mentioned at all unless they are a matter of historical significance. Directors commit all manner of sins which we should ignore. My only point in raising them above was to illustrate that 3 in 5 actually followed DerFigaro's conventional approach. The best references if we have them will be the academics.Syek88 (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thank you. Opus33 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Opus33 I agree with everything you said, I just want to add, that in my suggestion I mentioned the cloak taken away by Susanna because it’s quite important for the whole scene. When the Count knocks at the door, the Countess says: "Il mio sposo: Oh Dei! Son morta! Voi qui senza mantello!" (“My Husband! Oh God! He’ll kill me. You here, without your cloak!”). Cherubino doesn’t have his cloak anymore, and if he would wear a dress (or other women’s clothes), the Countess wouldn’t say “You here, without your cloak!”. Because Susanna took away his cloak, he can’t quickly put it on.
And there is another proof I want to add. When the Count wants to break into the closed room, the Countess says: "Giuro al ciel, ch’ogni sospetto… E lo stato in che il trovate… Sciolto il collo… nudo il petto… Per vestir femminee spoglie." ("I swear before heaven that any suspicion, and the state in which you find him… his collar undone, his chest bare… In order to dress him up as a woman…"). At this point it is more then clear that Cherubino doesn’t get dressed, even the Countess herself says that they were about to dress him. --DerFigaro (talk) 18:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. Thanks for bringing this up. Opus33 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Neue Mozart-Ausgabe and the Count's Classification

The 'roles' table purports to be listing the role according to the critical report at the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe, and the summary similarly explains that this means that the term "baritone" is not to be used. However, this seems odd, as this is not a standard that is applied consistently across wikipedia (the article on 'Die Zauberflöte,' for example, doesn't have a problem with listing Papageno as a baritone), and the text cited actually does list Almaviva as 'baritono' rather than 'basso.' This is in keeping with most other published scores, at least in modern day. If there's another source that lists him as basso, it makes sense to use that, but if we're going by the Neue Mozart-Ausgabe that lists him as 'baritono' I think the article should reflect that. 24.152.167.11 (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Basilio

The description of Basilio (in the score: "maestro di musica") was recently changed from "music master" to "music teacher", then to "Italian singer". I think the first change, to "music teacher", was quite sensible. The third version, "Italian singer", doesn't make any sense to me (this is not Rosenkavalier). I don't think there's an obviously compelling translation of "maestro di musica", but "music teacher" seems at least as good as "music master", and I suggest to restore it. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Support that, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I do too. It doesn't make sense to call him "an Italian singer". In The Barber of Seville (Rossini's "prequel"), Basilio is quite clearly Rosina's music teacher, and we all know, Rosina has married Almaviva and became Countess Almaviva. Not to mention, the play on which MoF is based, where Bazile (Basilio) is music master to the Countess. Note also in the Met synopsis [4], he's the Countess's " music teacher". In Grove, he's the "music master" [5]. I've never heard of him referred to as "an Italian singer". Voceditenore (talk) 16:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Oops, brain fart on my part. I was thinking Rosenkavalier. It was late here. Softlavender (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Amusingly, the most beautiful portrayal of the Italian Singer in Rosekavalier may be the portrayal by the quintessential GERMAN tenor, the divine Fritz Wunderlich, in the performance conducted by Josef Keilberth. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm chiming in on this late, but, Susanna actually identifies Basilio as "mio maestro di canto" in the recit just before Figaro's aria "Se vuol ballare". (Figaro answers her: "Chi, Basilio? O, birbante!".) Google-translate translates this identification as "my singing teacher". HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarini instead of "trumpets"

Mozart writes "Clarini" in his score. (Source: Neue Mozart Ausgabe [New Mozart Edition]) This is a natural trumpet which differs considerably from the modern trumpet not only in its construction but also in its sound. (The natural trumpet, for example, is twice as long as the modern trumpet.) The indication "two trumpets", however, suggests to the less well versed reader that Mozart wrote for the modern valve trumpets. I therefore plead for "two trumpets" to be exchanged for "2 Clarini", and if necessary "(natural trumpets)" to be added in brackets, since the Clarini are independent instruments, and not an outdated term for the modern trumpet or something like that. --DerFigaro (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Deh vieni, non tadar

There are two problems with DerFigaro's reading of the libretto versions of the punctuation in "Deh vieni, non tadar". The serious one is that they changed the spelling in a file name, File:W. A. Mozart - Le nozze di Figaro - Act 4 - 31. Giunse alfin il momento … Deh vieni, non tardar (Kleiber).flac, resulting in hiding that sound file; this ought to be reverted urgently.

The other is the question on which libretto version this article should rely. The NME's critical edition gives "Deh vieni, non tadar" and mentions the spelling without comma in the autograph and the first libretto. I think we should use the grammatically correct version with comma, as shown at NME. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"Esci omai, garzon malnato"

The translation: "Come out of there, you ill-born boy!", seems a bit stilted and literalistic. How about "Come out of there, you little bastard!"? That seems to fit the sentiment better, and it means the same thing. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 17:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The word “malnato” means “bad”, “harmful”, “ill-mannered”.
The word “garzone” means “boy”, “lad”, but also refers to an employee, a journeyman, a servant who does simple work. The word is related, for example, to the French garçon, which in turn goes back to the Old French word garçun and had the meaning “servant-boy”, “page”, among others. The OED defines garçon as “A boy, serving-man, waiter [...]”. Regarding the (obsolete) English variants “garcion” and “garson” it is written: “The primary sense is ‘servant, attendant’ [...] A serving-man, groom, esp. a young man or boy servant.”
The translation you suggest has nothing to do with what the Count says to Cherubino. “Ill-born boy” is an appropriate translation that does not distort the original text. Since the original libretto was written in an artificial language, in poetic verse, a translation that sounds stilted should not be a problem, as long as the content is correct and rendered as undistorted as possible. DerFigaro (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Figaro gets married too, at the end of Act 3! (Doesn't he?)

I'm pretty sure that the double-wedding at the end of Act 3 is Bartolo to Marcellina, and Figaro to Susanna. The stage directions say that Susanna slips the message and pin to the Count, and Figaro "comes to receive her" ("viene a riceverla") as Bartolo "comes to receive" (same Italian phrase) Marcellina a few seconds later. Afterwards, in Act 4, Figaro refers to himself as "doing the stupid job of husband" ("ed io comincio omai a fare il scimunito mestiero di marito.") He also refers to "the moment of my ceremony" when he recalls seeing the Count prick his finger at the end of Act 3. These suggest that he was, in fact, married during the final scene of Act 3.(The couple who still remain unmarried for the time being is Cherubino and Barbarina.) If I'm correct about this, then the current final line "Now nothing stands in the way of Figaro's wedding" isn't appropriate. I'm proposing to modify the synopsis accordingly. If anyone can show me I'm wrong, please do! (Or forever hold your peace.) I'll wait a few days. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Susanna and Figaro get married at the end of act 3, and the article is quite clear about it, except, as you noted, for the last sentence in act 4. Simply removing that sentence is all that's required. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Revised Finale

I have revised the description of the finale, since it contained very subjective and questionable interpretations, in addition to an incorrect translation of the Countess's answer. There is a great deal of secondary literature and treatises on this opera that questions the Count's sudden supposed (and not only in my opinion, very theatrically displayed) repentance.

It is also questionable whether the Countess actually forgives her husband; there are also different opinions about her answer, after all she only says "and I say yes".

The statement that in the end everyone is content must also be strongly doubted, for there are many different opinions on this as well. (Mozart gives the male and female voices different entries in the Allegro assai, separating the sexes, so to speak, which he does not do in other choruses in this and other operas - an indication that the gender conflict is by no means resolved? This is just one of many theories and considerations). Important: my argumentation is not intended to convince anyone of my interpretation, but merely to point out that there are many different interpretations. Statements like "The Count is remorseful" etc. are therefore not an objective description of the plot, but merely an unverifiable, subjective assessment. I have therefore tried to keep my formulation as neutral as possible and to refrain from any interpretations.--DerFigaro (talk) 22:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

You may be right about the Count's alleged repentance, but I'm pretty sure that Figaro and Susanna get married at the end of Act 3 and are already husband and wife by the beginning of Act 4; the stage directions (Schirmer score) and Figaro's remarks in Act 4 support this. For more detail, or to respond, see, and/or add to, my NEW SECTION at the bottom of this TALK page, pithily entitled "Figaro gets married too, at the end of Act 3! (Doesn't he?)" for further discussion. Consensus should be achievable without too much wrangling. Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I concur; see also below. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The passage in question has been changed, although there is still no proper evidence that Susanna and Figaro are married in the course of the plot. If anyone has solid evidence and not just opinions that would be very nice. Greetings, DerFigaro (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Eh? I think HandsomeMrToad's remarks at Talk:The Marriage of Figaro/Archive 1#Figaro gets married too, at the end of Act 3! (Doesn't he?) make that clear. Further, the opera's title is Le nozze di Figaro (which would be translated better as The Wedding of Figaro). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Marriage_of_Figaro/Archive_1&oldid=1126192032"