Talk:The Marriage of Figaro

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I can't provide a source for this, but I read that "Cherubin" was played by a woman even in the original Beaumarchais play. Beaumarchais said the part was too difficult to give to a boy performer. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2015 (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)

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)

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).

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)

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:

Overture:

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)