Talk:Le Villi

Comment

I think this is not correct: "Le Villi is Puccini's first stage work. It was written for a competition of one-act operas, but did not even earn an honorable mention. His supporters funded the first production, and due to the favourable reception, Giulio Ricordi agreed to take on the publishing. Ricordi urged the composer to expand the work, and Puccini did, producing a new version later that year, which was followed by modifications in 1888, and the final version in 1892." From what I've heard, Puccini met the adjudicators weeks after the competition, and since they couldn't even remember his opera, he played it in entirity to them on the piano. They enjoyed it so much they funded it. I was just wondering....

Yes. Since Giulio Ricordi printed the libretto of the first production, the above statement ("...due to the favourable reception, Giulio Ricordi agreed...") is false. Also, consider that Ponchielli was a man of "casa Ricordi": it was he who put Puccini in contact with the librettist Ferdinando Fontana and he was in the "Concorso Sonzogno" commission. According to Julian Budden, probably it was Ricordi who obtained that Puccini's opera would not win the "Concorso Sonzogno" by "driving" the commission (Ponchielli and others). --Al pereira 21:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die lustige Witwe?

THe text now says "The libretto is based in the Central European legend of the Willis, also used in the ballet Giselle and the opera Die lustige Witwe." What exactly is the connection with Die lustige Witwe? I don't get it. -- Kleinzach 15:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever put that in was presumably referring to "Vilja, o Vilja", the story of a nymph who fell in love with a mortal (see Slavic fairies. It could be said to be "used in" Die lustige Witwe, but the reference here is rather misleading. --GuillaumeTell 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it would be simplest to just remove the reference. -- Kleinzach 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Puccini, this was probably because it was written in such haste that it was all but illegible"

Actually, this is an old theory. The writing of the manuscript isn't illegible (and part of the manuscript is written by a copist). For any doubt see it:Le_Villi#Genesi --Al Pereira (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know Budden didn't find anything to make him change his mind that it was incorrect, but feel free to add Giradi's theory with a citation, anything can only improve the article. Mighty Antar (talk) 22:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some additions. According To Girardi, the writing is absolutely clear. According to Budden, on the contrary, «The autograph of Le Villi starts neatly enough but soon degenerates into an untidy scrawl with blotches and corrections». For sure, both these musicologists knew the manuscript kept at the Archivio Ricordi! Why, then, this difference of opinions? Because the Ricordi Manuscript includes the corrections made for later versions, which obviously make the score "an untidy scrawl with blotches and corrections", but which hasn't to do with the 1883 version. Besides, Budden states that «Several of the pages are in the hand of a later copyist, evidently replacing the originals», but according to Dieter Schickling's catalogue, the pages in a copyist's hand are dated "Lucca 10.11.83" and "Lucca 21.11.83". This makes clear that the copyist didn't work «later» and those pages were part of the manuscript send to Sonzogno at the end of December 1883. At last, the full score autograph of the Final scene is kept at the Pierpont Morgan Library. I have a copy of this autograph and can confirm that it's definitely clear. --Al Pereira (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things. Carner wrote a great book, I'm a great fan of his Puccini's biography, but he didn't know all the sources we know nowadays (even if he knew some other that now are losen!). Therefore, I tend to think that, in general, it would be better to use more recent bibliographical sources. Finally, as regards the statement "According to Puccini, this was probably because it was written in such haste that it was all but illegible", I don't think that Puccini wrote anything like this, he only wrote that he "didn't hope" to win (which IMO confirms the Girardi theory). Can you control the quotation from Carner? Thanks. --Al Pereira (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So did Budden not see the manuscript described in Dieter Schickling's catalogue that Girardi refers to? Or did he not spot the dates? Or did he assume the copyists copied these dates from the original manuscript? Unfortunately Budden can't answer. I don't know what material Carner had access to for his biography, but he states very clearly "according to his own description (Puccini's), it was all but illegible". It is difficult to see how the comment from Puccini you refer to, about having little hope of winning could be interpreted by Carner in this way. Carner writes in the letters of Puccini book that according to Fontana the score was presented at the last minute and Puccini had to send it without making a fair copy. Again I've no idea where Carner got this from, but to me this seems a more likely set of events to befall a promising but broke and still relatively untested composer entering a major competition than some conspiracy devised to gain the Ricordi contract. All that said, this is my point of view, as the above is yours. The Girardi material undoubtably belongs in this article as a balance to the other theorys. Mighty Antar (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Budden didn't spot the dates, but the certain thing is that those dates exist and demonstrate that part of the score was copied, unlike Carner writes.

I have no idea about Carner's source, but I don't know any letter where Puccini states that his manuscript "was all but illegible". Actually, the most recent studies on Le Villi don't use this quote; and it isn't strange since Carner doesn't specify a source.

Also, I disagree that this is a better explaination. Firstly, it isn't true that the writing was unclear (even more if you consider that the musica itself of this little opera is very simple). Secondly, Ponchielli knew very well the writing of his scholar, he suggested him to take part to the "Concorso Sonzogno" and introduced him to Fontana... So, why didn't he help, as part of the commission? And remember that Ponchielli published only with Ricordi! Consider also that just a few months earlier, Puccini's Capriccio Sinfonico had a great success in Milan, under the direction of Franco Faccio, when it was very positively reviewed by Filippo Filippi. In other words, in Milan the talent of Puccini was already known. Why should a commission appointed by Sonzogno cause such a damage (without any serious reason) to the second Italian musical publisher, if not to make the interest of the first Italian musical publisher? Actually, it was a great spot for Le Villi to be presented as the opera that lose the Concorso Sonzogno. And Ricordi printed the libretto before signing the contract! --Al Pereira (talk) 05:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Budden (whose work is more recent than Girardi's after all) saw the issue in context, its an interesting theory, but lends Puccini (and Le Villi) a significance that he had yet to realise. Let's face it, the delay before Edgar and the abject failure of Edgar was not a disaster for Sonzogno. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why talking about Edgar (which wasn't an "abject failure": see the newspapers)? Le Villi was a success and, the most important, with this opera Puccini became a Ricordi composer. As regards Julian Budden, I repeat: he wasn't correct about the manuscript. And - again - where is Puccini's letter saying that his manuscript was "all but illegible", which is quoted in the article? Also, I don't understand the phrase "Budden saw the issue in context": everybody tries to do this, the difference being that in this case (nothing against Budden, on the contrary....) the context considered (the condition of the manuscript) isn't correct. --Al Pereira (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budden states Several of the pages are in the hand of a later copyist, evidently replacing the originals. in addition he cites both Girardi and Schickling's work in his introduction and his bibliography. Did he miss the dates on the manuscript copies? I don't know, but its clear he looked at them. Did he not read Girardi's theory and go back and check? Again, I don't know, but I think it very unlikely that he would not have at least considered the merits of Giradi's theory. Carner is the source for Puccini's quote. Where is the source of Carner's quote? I don't know, but Carner, Budden and many others (unlike Girardi) are not making an exceptional claim. In the context of the majority of Puccini's work (and as much as we might wish they were), Le Villi and Edgar are not in the same league. The contract with Ricordi only led directly to Edgar which very nearly led to the company dropping Puccini altogether (I doubt Sonzogno would have signed him up if Ricordi had). I repeat, Girardi's theory should be included in this article, but in the context of WP:DUE, it is not (yet) the majority view. Mighty Antar (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budden can state what he wants, but the dates are on the copies. If we cannot agree on this point, the discussion is just a waste of time. In 2002 Budden knew the Puccini biography written by Schickling, but not Schickling's catalogue, published in 2003. You say that "Carner, Budden and many others .... are not making an exceptional claim", but if you carefully read, you see the different ways Carner and Budden support that theory, the later as nothing more than a hypothesis based on the manuscript and - note - without quoting Carner and the words he credited to Puccini: "was all but illegible". Why he didn't quote these words? For the same reason I am suggesting to deleting them from the article, that is that we don't know their source. It could be just a rumour.

Also, we aren't debating the quality of Le Villi and Edgar (operas who mainly suffer the presence of two bad librettos), but the fact that in those years both Sonzogno and Ricordi were searching for young talents. This was the aim of the "Concorso Sonzogno". What was Sonzogno's interest? To award Puccini and sing a contract with him or to do this with Zuelli and Mapelli? Are these composers "in the same league"?

Just as a personal addition to better frame the question (since nobody wrote this till now): it's possible that the writing was used as "excuse" to avoid to award Puccini. The score was legible, but not neat and clean. And Puccini already knew this, since he wrote «I've little hope». Why did he think this? Was he aware that there was some Mozart among the competing composers? Of course, he didn't.

Finally, the point: the en.wiki article is using an old source (Carner), which isn't used from neither Budden nor Girardi nor Schickling, to turn a hypotesis in a fact. I refer to the words: "According to Puccini, this was probably because it was written in such haste that it was all but illegible." I strongly suggest to delete this phrase, seeing at recent studies. Budden considers this hypothesis likely, but just as a hypothesis (not as a fact) and without the "according to Puccini" point. Girardi suggests a different hypothesis. You can refer about both, but without forgetting that there is a basic difference: Budden hadn't read the dates on the copies and, for this reason, he wrote about "a later copyist". The copy isn't later. --Al Pereira (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. Girardi is suggesting an alternative hypothesis that fits with surviving evidence, not stating a fact. Carner appears to be stating a fact even if we can't at this moment identify Carner's source. What benefit to Carner to make something like that up? Few would dispute that Puccini's manuscript handwriting is awful. Who paid the copyists? - Puccini was broke - the judges were going to fail him anyway, what was the point in having copies made? The more logical answer is that these are later copies that Ricordi had made and that the copiers faithfully transcribed the dates from the originals (perhaps the only easily legible material on them). I really can't imagine that Budden (who includes Carner in his bibliography) did not consider the merits of Giradi's new hypothesis and dismiss them as a conspiracy theory. Is it really conceivable that in all the years since the Le Villi debut, no-one ever mentioned the day that (they and/or) Puccini outwitted Ricordi and Sonzogno! Even if no-one else had, I'm sure Puccini could not have resisted letting something slip.Mighty Antar (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These are later copies that Ricordi had made and that the copiers faithfully transcribed the dates from the originals"? That's incredible. Copyist who transcribe the dates from the originals: a really fantastic story. Definitely, you know how to deny evidence and don't answer at my points. I realize that I am wasting my time. It's funny that you write: "Budden includes Carner in his bibliography". What does it mean? How can you think that he doesn't? At this point, I link this talk to the "Project Opera". They will decide what to do. --Al Pereira (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completeness, the dates on the copies ("Lucca 10.11.83", "21.11.83") are on Puccini's hand, as well as his signatures and expression marks (Schickling, Catalogue, p. 140). --Al Pereira (talk) 11:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the issues of which copy is which, the original wording did not accurately reflect what Carner said. I checked my copy of his book (3rd edition 1992). On page 40 Carner suggests that it may have been because the score was illegible and the committee hadn't even bothered to read it, but nowhere does Carner suggest that Puccini had given this as an explanation for its failure at the competiton. I've ammended that bit of the text to reflect that. Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In 1992 Carner revised his book, but also the 1958 edition didn't say that. Note that Carner also wrote that Puccini didn't respect the delivery date, which is false, since the jury signed the score «31 dicembre 1883». The "issue" of which copy is which isn't a issue: the dates on the copies cannot be anything else than the dates of the copies. --Al Pereira (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Villi / Le villi

Why the title was changed? --Al Pereira (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the title was changed to conform to the capitalization used by New Grove Dictionary of Opera. I'll paste my comment at the Opera Project talk page here:

"Villi" is normally treated as a proper noun in Italian when rendering the title. An operatic example of a group being given proper noun status would be I Lombardi alla prima crociata. It's a problematic area with a fair amount of variation in both Italian and English. Non operatic examples would be groups like the "Muse" Muses, "Sirene" (Sirens) and "Furie" (Furies)). The word "ninfa" (nymph) is not capitalized but the various sub-groups of nymphs are, e.g. "Pleiadi" Pleiades. In this (isolated) case, I'm inclined to give more authority to the Centro studi Giacomo Puccini: Catalogo delle opere teatrali than to Grove. But that's just my personal opinion. I'll copy this to the Le villi talk page. Perhaps other OP members who have views on this could weigh in there.

Best, Voceditenore (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for answering. It's a problematic area indeed, but in this case the choice of the Grove surprised me since all the secondary literature on Puccini uses the upper case title. In Italian, it's actually treated as a proper noun: it's like it:La Valchiria. --Al Pereira (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Pereira: OK. Now we have seen all the references, it's clear that this is one of those rare 50:50 cases where there is a lot of confusion. My understanding was that like nymphs and fairies, the willies were not a proper noun, but some writers apparently think otherwise, so I don't have any objection if you want to re-capitalize the 'v'. --Klein zach 23:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kleinzach. Now just we need an admin..... --Al Pereira (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need... Done --Al Pereira (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conductor of the Milan premiere

There seems to be some confusion about who conducted the premiere in Milan, Teatro Dal Verme, 31 May 1884.

Achille Panizza: according to this, this, this, and this.

Arturo Panizza: according to this and this.

Giacomo Panizza: according to this and this.

Just Panizza: according to this.

But Riccardo Drigo: according to his WP article, which says: In 1884 Drigo conducted the St. Petersburg premiere of Amilcare Ponchielli's I Lituani, which was presented under the title Aldona. That same year Drigo traveled to Milan at the behest of Giacomo Puccini to conduct the premiere of his opera Le Villi at the Teatro Dal Verme. The great composer was so pleased with Drigo's conducting that he telegraphed his appreciation to Drigo for years to come on the anniversary of the premiere. I haven’t found any source for that, despite an extensive Google search. I have found a reference to Drigo conducting Le Villi, but at La Fenice, Venice in 1885-86 - [1].

So, was it Drigo or Panizza, and if it was Panizza, which one? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According with Schickling's catalogue and "Carteggi pucciniani", Arturo Panizza. According with Budden, Alfredo Panizza. --Al Pereira (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have 4 (!) different Panizzas - Achille, Arturo, Alfredo and Giacomo. The money seems to be on a Panizza rather than Drigo at all. I did read that Panizza was a member of an artistic dynasty, so there seem to have been various Panizzas active at that time. And then there was the Argentinian Ettore Panizza, who also figured in the Puccini story (he took over from Arturo Toscanini for the 2nd and later performances of Turandot). -- JackofOz (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That "dynasty" reference was here, but I've not been able to track down any family connections between the various Panizzas who were conductors. I've also discovered a conductor named Augusto Panizza (see our Frascati article). -- JackofOz (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Osborne says "The conductor was not, as some reference books state, Ettore Panizza ... Ettore Panizza was only nine years old in 1884", so now there is another Panizza that some books apparently report. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been nice if Osborne had reported who did, in fact, conduct. But perhaps he was as much in the dark as we are, and all he could do was eliminate someone who couldn't possibly have been a contender. The plot thickens. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo Panizza. Schickling's catalogue is the source. --Al Pereira (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying Schickling's catalogue trumps all other references, Al? If so, why?

Btw, I've raised this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#The Panizza musical dynasty, to see if the wider world can help out. User:Who then was a gentleman? has already spoken up there. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the only catalogue of Puccini's works, it's recent, very well made and obviously, being a catalogue, it's a philological work. I disagree with this edit. Anyway, on-line sources shouldn't be used and the Ettore Panizza hypotesis is just ridicolous. --Al Pereira (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ettore is certainly out of the question. But why do you say online sources shouldn't be used? Wikipedia depends on online sources, and generally prefers them where available. "The only catalogue of Puccini's works" - really? I think not. Maybe some people consider it the best and most authoritative. Others, like me, have never heard of it. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Osborne did say. It's at this subject on the Ref Desk. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he said it was Achille, which is at odds with what Schickling says. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to have wrong information? Feel free to use online sources instead of serious literature. BTW, There is another old catalogue by Cecil Hopkinson, 1968. JackofOz, you don't know the most authoritative catalogue because you don't know the matter we are talking about. You don't know the literature about Puccini. That's all. --Al Pereira (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair comment, Al. I've never claimed to know the Puccini literature, but I can spot inconsistencies between sources when I see them, and that's all I'm wanting to resolve here. As a relative outsider, I'm entitled to ask why one source says one thing and another source says another, and why should we believe either of them over other sources who say yet other things. For example, why should we believe Shickling, who goes for Arturo, over Osborne, who claims it was Achille? Did either of them go to the original handbills of the performances, or were they relying on secondary sources? There are probably very satisfactory answers to these questions; I just want to know what they are, that's all. Given that at least 6 different people have been quoted in the literature as being the conductor, I think we owe it to our readers to not just assert that it was whoever we say it was, and to not just say where that information came from, but to also explain why we prefer that source rather than other sources that say something different. If we can't justify choosing one source over another, the best we can do is what I've already done - explain that the sources vary and let the readers make up their own minds -- JackofOz (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schickling did a philological study, Osborne wrote a biography. For the same reason, Julian Budden did a mistake in the original English edition of his Puccini. His life and works, writing that the opera was conducted by Alfredo Panizza, but later the mistake was corrected in the Italian edition of the same book. If you gather all the sources in a acritical way, wikipedia will became a collection of doubts and mistakes. I wonder how do you think to resolve the inconsistencies between sources: by quoting a further source which debate the problem? Why this source should exist and why should be authoritative? Anyway, I won't correct the mistake. Feel free to keep it, if you prefer. --Al Pereira (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS WAS ALSO POSTED IN THE DRIGO ARTICLE DISCUSSION PAGE - the reference of Drigo and Le Villi came from the following - Scherer, Barrymore Laurence. Riccardo Drigo: Toast of the Czars. Published in Ballet News - January, 1982, pp. 26-28. It says, quote - "Among his most memorable Italian seasons was the Carnival of 1886 at the Teatro la Fenice in Venice where he conducted both the world premiere of Ponchielli's Marion Delorme and the Venetian premiere of Puccini's Le Villi. Very young and very nervous, the future composer of Madame Butterfly sent his thanks to Drigo in an effusive telegram, and to the end of his days kept a warm place in his heart for him." This reference is taken from Drigo's Italian bio, (Travaglia, Silvio. Riccardo Drigo: l'uomo e l'artista) which also expands on this reference and mentions Puccini's yearly telegrams. The mistake was mine (I keyed in Milan rather than Venice) --Mrlopez2681 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]