Talk:Jacques Offenbach

Operettas: Texts and word setting - a request for review

To disclose personal interest ab initio, I'm bilingual English-French, from birth, and from a school with an uninterrupted heritage from Shakespeare's Company, which founded the National Youth Theatre movement. The Section desperately needs revision, because it's just plain wrong. Harding's comments on rhythmic distortion are based on the Napoleonic codification of everything, under the Académie Française, which is exactly what Offenbach was resisting: his bar from those circles of self-appointed Worthies is a major theme of this history. In passing, your References are weak, they need to cite an exact text not only in Harding's respect, but in several others.

The idea that all French must be based in the Alexandrine form has been comprehensively dismantled by René Goscinny in the second half of the last century. What was intended as an ideal became dogma, unquestionable, and now discredited. The adoption of English Humour has at long last introduced the Shakespearean form of wit (and more precisely, that of his clown Robert Armin, whose texts Fool Upon Foole and A Nest of Ninnies comprehensively document the ideation of the style) to the French language, although many like Offenbach had preceded it - indeed, the work of Rabelais is part of a despised corpus documented in Theatre of France, which describes the dark turn French stage took in the post-Reformation era of the Wars of Religion. Indeed, had it not been for the Court Masques, an excellent case might be made for the idea that Offenbach was on the cutting edge of reintroducing fun onto the French stage. Therefore, to denounce the Kings Quintet as you do is just plain wrong: he's deliberately satirising his initial ultra-Orthodox statements by punning that the Queen has fleas, and the King's inebriated.

It might be argued that this is revisionism: my reply is that the texts speak for themselves, such an approach disregards the facts that French humour continued unabated whatever the snobs of French Culture wished.

Just noticed this. It's a bit over my head, my French being on the rudimentary side (and I only know René Goscinny from Asterix), but I'd say such Offenbachian devices as

Aux maris ré,
Aux maris cal,
Aux maris ci,
Aux maris trants,
Aux maris récalcitrants

justify Hughes's and Harding's comments about forcing words into unnatural stresses, and wreaking violence on the French language. Tim riley talk 12:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Jacques Offenbach by Nadar.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Jacques Offenbach by Nadar.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 25, 2020. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2020-03-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but here goes. The Nadar photo of Offenbach at the head of the article is captioned "Offenbach in the 1860s". I'm doubting this dating is accurate - is there any documentation/source for it? Nadar took at least three of what I think of as the "fur coat" pictures of Offenbach at what appears to have been the same sitting. The Getty has an example of one of them and gives the negative's date as "1875-79". Additionally, Offenbach was in his 40s in the 1860s and to my eye, at least the subject appears rather tired, worn and, well, over 50 - closer to 60.

http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/39389/nadar-gaspard-felix-tournachon-paul-nadar-jacques-offenbach-french-negative-1875-1879-print-1890-1900/ Depanzoust (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've only just clocked this, and I concur. The Bibliothèque nationale de France, from where the image comes, gives the publication date (well after Offenbach's death) but not the date it was taken. In the article it is now just "by Nadar". Tim riley talk 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed candidacy for Featured Article

I'm hoping to take this to FAC, and would be glad of any preliminary input here. It was suggested just now that we should move some of the many IPA versions into a footnote, which I've done. My own initial thoughts, on which I'd be grateful for comments, are (i) that there's a helluva lot of explanatory footnotes and that we could advantageously lose a few, e.g. 7, 12, 16, 17, 18 and 29, and (ii) the long and to my mind not very good Elegy by Clement Scott might be better blitzed. Général Boum, Ssilvers, SchroCat and all comers: comments hugely welcome. Tim riley talk 11:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

SchroCat

I think I agree with the Scott removal. I don't think it adds anything of real note to the article. In terms of the footnotes, I'm always a big fan of them for closely related detail which doesn't reach the level of being in the article. If they fit that broad and rather woolly classification, leave them in would be my advice. - SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

SSilvers

(1) I will be sad to see the whimsical, lighthearted Clement Scott piece go. It seems like a fun example of... that sort of published elegy?; perhaps there could be a link to it in the Legacy section. But I agree that removing it frees up space for a smaller image that gives a more probing perspective on Offenbach's legacy or reputation. (2) I also think the last Strauss cartoon is not helpful. It seems to be saying that Offenbach (as of 1871) did not deserve his higher reputation as compared with Strauss, but what does that add to Offenbach's article? We also have another image of Strauss higher up. I bet there are better images to illustrate the Legacy and reputation section. (3) I need time to read through the notes, but looking at the first one Tim noted, #7, I don't see what it adds and would be inclined to remove it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I have had grief at FAC before about excessive quotations, and Clement Scott's doggerel runs to nearly 400 words. I suspect I'd get it in the neck from Gog the Mild if I left that screed in place. Tim riley talk 13:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I was not clear: I am agreeing that we *should* remove it, although I shall miss it (at least until it is replaced by something better). -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the cartoon is suggesting that Strauss has outweighed Offenbach, whose supporters are struggling to level the scales, but it isn't all that clear, and I agree it doesn't add much to our understanding. The top and bottom of it is that Strauss was operatically a one-hit wonder (though what a one hit!) except perhaps in German-speaking lands, whereas our man has a good handful of enduring hits to his name (though fewer than Sullivan, ahem!) Shall I remove the cartoon, messieurs-dames? Tim riley talk 12:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now removed. There were problems with it at the FAC image review in any case. Tim riley talk 08:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Review of NOTES: #5 is a little confusing, as it does not support the statement made and, if anything, renders it dubious. Does Gammond support the facts introduced in the first sentence of the paragraph? There is not actually a ref for that sentence. #6: Isn't Harding more likely to be correct than Faris? Maybe cite Harding and footnote Faris? #10: Should it say that Nadar "joked" that it was 3,997? He had been composing operatic pieces for 8 years prior to 1855, and there were only 2,922 days (including leap days) in those 8 years, so if Nadar were taken seriously, Offenbach would have made such visits about twice a day, except for Sundays, from the time he began producing operettas to 1855. So Nadar must have intended the number as lighthearted hyperbole. #19 "Rondo" and "Rondeau" -- did we mean to spell it two different ways? #25: "Many of his papers were involved in" -- should that be "were destroyed in" or "damaged" or "lost"? We make it seem that they were co-conspirators. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Note 5 adjusted; note 6 not sure one source is more scholarly than the other; note 10 - I think you're probably right, but I can't put in an editorial "joked", and have zapped the note, which doesn't add much; note 19 that's what the sources say; note 25 attended to. Bless you! Tim riley talk 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

4meter4

Would including a gallery of images at the bottom of the page be a possibility? This might be a way to include a link to the Clement Scott piece without taking up so much space. That's assuming there are other images worth including in a gallery of course.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm all for galleries and will have a look round for possible pix to add, but the problem with the Punch picture is that it has to be tall and pretty big to be legible and wouldn't sit at all well in the usual style of gallery. Tim riley talk 12:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the Scott piece would not be appropriate for a gallery, though I would not object to including the Strauss cartoon there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Cg2p0B0u8m

yes, I think note 12 could go if there is a reference to Yon and Lamb for the 300.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally I would remove the Spiegl quote which is quite speculative (Lehar??) - the article deals with Offenbach's influence on others, and given recent Lecocq revivals we could expand the influences/differences on him or other French operetta composers. (I do sort of feel that the article presents a premise - Offenbach's influence on Sullivan and Strauss - and then takes a lot of time to deal with that, while later influences (Chabrier, Poulenc, etc) could be mentioned. But I would remove the Spiegl.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to differ about the Spiegl quote, although if others concur with you I'll back down gracefully. I would love to add something about O's influence on later French composers, and have searched extensively to find something about his music vis-a-vis that of Lecocq and Messager but haven't succeeded. Hadn't thought of Poulenc - any thoughts on where to look? Tim riley talk 12:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Update

Notes 7 and 12 (as was) now blitzed. What about the notes that just give the original French text? Tim riley talk 12:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a busy few days. I will read the notes carefully later this week. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

DBaK

Should "Légion d'honneur" be italicized? Certainly it should be consistently capitalized, which currently it is not. But as it is in Gurt Foreign, as we academics call it, are italics not appropriate? But then ... what do I know? (And yes I do note that the target article is, horrendously, called "Legion of Honour" but I am not even, as they say, Going There. I am asking merely about the correct, French term here.) Best to all, DBaK (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That depends on whether it is a proper name, the MoS opining "A proper name is usually not italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Now consistently Romic. Tim riley talk 16:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Lovely, thanks both. Also for Sorting Out the CapitaliZation. DBaK (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Later 1860s

User:Tim riley or anyone: it is stated in this section that Le château à Toto is a revised version of Le pont des soupirs (citing Lamb), but neither of those articles state the same. Is it just missing there, or am I misreading this? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

You are indeed misreading it, but that's my fault and I'll redraw to make all plain. There were three new(ish) pieces in 1868, not two as you have taken the text to mean. Tim riley talk 08:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clear now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)