Jump to content

Talk:La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein

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

Synopsis - copyright violation

[edit]

I am afraid that the synopsis which was added yesterday is a copyright violation, and should be removed. It is clear that it is copied/pasted from the external link web page which was added with the same edit. Regards 81.83.137.228 (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone rewrite (and preferably shorten) the synopsis in their own words? If anyone understands French, they could be guided by the French Wikipedia version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently from Ganzl: Book of Musical Theatre (1988). Obviously in copyright. --Kleinzach 02:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a temporary measure, I've added a new one, which is verbatim, but from a public domain source:
Hubbard, William Lines (ed.). "La Grande Duchesse de Gérolstein". The Imperial History and Encyclopedia of Music (Operas, Volume 1). New York: I. Squire, ca 1909, pp. 313-315

This is not to say that it shouldn't be copyedited for flow, etc. Note that a previous external link Description of the opera, including characters and plot synopsis (oldandsold.com) was merely a copy from that book. I also removed the Recordings section as it was completely empty apart from an external link to the opera-dis discography which is inappropriate. I've moved the link to the external links section. It can be moved back as an inline cite, once someone actually puts some content into a Recordings section. Voceditenore (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job; I did a minor copy edit for flow and sense. Softlavender (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Production history

[edit]

This section did not give a very good idea that the opera has been presented more or less continuously. I added some information about some productions, but I don't have any information about French productions. Can someone add some information about some of the major ones? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence in the article says it was banned four years after its opening due to the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian wars. It doesn't say for how long (nor is the sentence cited). But that may be one reason no further French productions are listed at present. (I haven't checked Google or anything for other French prods.) Softlavender (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there were lots of French productions, but I don't speak French. Should we list these TV productions?:

This lists some upcoming productions: http://www.offenbachsociety.org.uk/forthcoming_events_country.htm

-- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many bottles of wine?

[edit]

The public-domain source we are using says 300,000 bottles of wine. The Guide to Musical Theatre says 20,000. That's quite a difference. Is there a third independent source that can provide a number? I checked the French and German wikis but they don't give numbers. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, duh never mind the French libretto on WikiSource says 300,000. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography

[edit]

Here's the discography from the French article. Can anyone translate?:

  • Régine Crespin, Mady Mesplé, Alain Vanzo, Robert Massard, Charles Burles, Michel Plasson (dir.), CBS 79-207, 1977. Réédité chez Sony Classical SM 2K-62583 (2CD)
  • Suzanne Lafaye, Michèle Raynaud, Jean Aubert, Henri Bédex, Jean-Claude Hartemann (dir.), Decca Carrère 67-755. Réédité chez Universal/Accord 465 871-2 (2CD)
  • Eugénie Zareska, André Dran, John Riley, René Leibowitz (dir.), Urania US-5115
  • Felicity Lott, Sandrine Piau, Yann Beuron, Franck Leguérinel, Eric Huchet, François Le Roux, Les Musiciens du Louvre, Marc Minkowski (dir.), mise en scène Laurent Pelly, 2005, Virgin Classics 7243-5-45734-2-2. Disponible aussi en DVD.

-- Ssilvers (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's my second pass, with one French wiki link:

  1. ^ http://www.allmusic.com/album/offenbach-la-grande-duchesse-de-gerolstein-w121364
  • OK, I'm done with the above; you can add it to the article in the format desired. By the way, I noticed on a site that the Suzanne Lafaye one was originally recorded (issued?) in 1966. And the AllMusic article gives the date (1958) of the Eugénie Zareska recording. Softlavender (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering error in Act 3 Musical Numbers?

[edit]

In the Musical Numbers chart, which was seemingly imported from French Wiki, in Act 3 the numbering goes from 15b to 9(bis) ["bis" meaning encore; I forgot to translate that but someone can] to 16. This doesn't make sense. I can't find any place to confirm a fix but in the libretto there is indeed an Orchestral interlude/melodrama after 15a and 15b (the conspirators' songs) and then it proceeds as indicated in the chart. Is this a simple error we can fix ourselves? Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the numbering, but I added "reprise" instead of "bis" - is that an appropriate translation? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Though I actually don't know why the word is used in any of its instances here. Softlavender (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background and reception

[edit]

Now that we have added technical sections like musical numbers, we need to add two substantive sections: (i) Background: How did Offenbach get the idea for it, what was the history of its genesis and development for the stage? What is its place and importance in Offenbach's career? (ii) Reception: What was the critical and box office reception of the original productions and later productions. Also, as I said above, we need more production history, particularly with respect to French productions. Does the French wiki article have any information about these? Some of this info might be in the Holden and/or Lamb articles listed under "References", if anyone has access to those. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the main AllMusic entry on the operetta has a great background section, which can be utitlized and paraphrased: [1]. Softlavender (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I took the hint and started a Background section, but it needs expansion. How many performances did the original production play? Please go ahead and add the critical reception section based on the below, if you can give full citations to the sources. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your other question, neither the French nor the German article gives any background info, but the French does give reception info for the first production. Here's a somewhat clunky Google Translation of that section, to give you some idea. At the very least, we can note the cited heads of state who attended (I see AllMusic lists some, too):

"It is delicious, the first act, and an incredible fantasy of sparkling gaiety. This is the most ludicrous charge that could be dreaming of glory military, its plumes, its stripes and all its bells and whistles." Sarcey, 1867.

In a room redone and despite the length and other critics accuse of Figaro, the opera buffa was a great success. The first two acts are a real triumph, the third falls a little flat, Offenbach performs cuts from the second performance. Among other tunes, the "Chimes of my grandmother" - which will be retained in the version of Vienna - is removed.[1]

A censorship report dated April 5, seven days before the first manifest many scruples about the piece (the "ridiculous" and military power, as well as "scabrous situations"). This wass censorship, which had already imposed, for example, the name of Gerolstein, invented by Eugene Sue in The Mysteries of Paris, to give a resolutely imaginative plan.

All the crowned heads wanted to see Hortense Schneider, causing an exorbitant fee 2,000 francs a month [ref. desired] in the title role. April 24, Napoleon III to attend the performance,[1] before returning a few days later with the Empress. In early May, Mr. Adolphe Thiers came.[1] On the 15th, the Prince of Wales, son of Queen Victoria, in the chair No. 18 in the lodge balcony. June 1, Alexander II, Tsar of All Russia and the Grand Duke Vladimir. "Miss Schneider's legs seem to have had much effect on the prince Wladimir ... ," said Prosper Mérimée June 6. Later, you could see Bismarck forefront with Moltke and Marshal MacMahon. And even Ismail Pasha, viceroy of Egypt, who comes almost every night during his stay in Paris; the King of Bavaria; King of Portugal; and the King of Sweden.[Ref. desired]

Only the Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria was an exception by not going to "visit" the Grand Duchess during his visits to Paris. Jules Prével noted in Le Figaro: "If the Emperor of Austria has not honored her with his presence, it has twice been announced that he lacked the time, besides he had seen this attractive person in Vienna."[2]

-- Softlavender (talk) 04:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings (again)

[edit]

Additional recordings from the same source noted above the table:

In the Régine Crespin recording, Robert Massard is Boum, while in the Felicity Lott recording, François Le Roux is Boum. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added all the recordings to the table, but I need help with the last column if anyone can look into it. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the last column, are you only listing CDs, or LPs as well if there has been no CD issued? Softlavender (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that recording that's missing Wanda is missing her because it's a recording of only about half the opera. They probably excised the duet between Wanda and Fritz and then just used an unknown in the choruses they used that included her. But yes, it is a notable recording, New York magazine praises it highly: [2], as well as giving a good quotable quote about the opera in general. So I guess you can put the word "excerpts" somewhere in that listing. Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discography chart

[edit]

Personally, I'd rather have the discography chart on the article's page. At ten albums, it takes up less room than the musical numbers chart does. I think it's important to have the chart handy and in the same place, so that readers can look at it without switching between pages. Especially since many of the recordings/performances were mentioned in the text, and readers will want to compare and contrast. Also, the character names and descriptions in the Roles chart and Plot summary help readers understand the discography chart. At less than 30,000 bytes, the article is in no way overlong, and I feel that having the chart on a seperate page is undue content forking. Anyway, that's my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Category:Opera discographies which has 54 similar lists. There is a well-established consensus that the longer discographies go on subpages. If you want to read the general WP guideline see Wikipedia:Splitting. Also note these discographies gradually become much longer as people work on them. Thank you. --Kleinzach 02:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond to that, the guidelines on splitting read "< 30 KB: Length alone does not justify division." Articles greater than 60,000 bytes is when splitting becomes something to consider. Also, we've listed all known recordings of the work, and there are only ten, which is not long in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Splitting explains: " . . . refactoring an article into child or sister articles can allow subtopics to be discussed more fully elsewhere without dominating a general overview article to which they are non-central . . .". Also length is not just a matter of KB. Discographies contain a lot of empty space. --Kleinzach 03:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution which has been adopted in several opera articles (including at least two Featured articles) where the discography has been put on a separate page is to have a referenced prose summary in a Recording history section of the main article with a link to the discography. See La bohème, L'incoronazione di Poppea and Tosca for examples. In my view, taking a discography out and simply leaving a blank Recordings section with a link to it is not the best practice. Voceditenore (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't think summmarizing the recording history of this little-recorded operetta would help readers much, especially when the chart was so effective. It would also be repeating much of the prose in the Performance section, and therefore a lot of it would be redundant. Those two long articles cited are well over 60,000 bytes each and have numerous recordings -- for Tosca, more than 70 and growing all the time. The chart of ten recordings in this article occured at the very end; therefore it obscured nothing, and anyone who wants to see the Notes and External Links can easily scroll past a chart of ten listings. Therefore, I still prefer the chart to be in the article. It keeps information (which is what an encyclopedia is about) all in one place for the reader, and is therefore most helpful that way. Softlavender (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence about splitting it off. 10 recordings is pretty borderline, and frankly the two "bootleg" Premiere Opera recordings shouldn't be in the discography at all (see [3]), making it really only 8. I'm only suggesting what should/could be done if it is split off. The material currently in the performance history section about releases on DVD, CD, etc. can easily be moved to a recording section, thus avoiding duplication of material and it can be supplemented with information about particularly notable recordings referenced to reviews. So it is do-able. Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really possible to simply move the information from the Performance History section to a discography synopsis, because the two productions I'm talking about -- Santa Fe and Minkowski -- were live productions, and so need to be described in the Performance History section. To repeat the descriptions again is going to be duplicative, in my view. Softlavender (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the Premiere Opera recordings should be omitted. They seem to be recordings of two of the most important productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Premiere Opera is not a label or a record company. It's basically a one-man bootleg operation. You order the recording, and they make you a copy on demand. He obtains the recordings by trading with other collectors. Some are off-air, others are taken from older LPs, and many, many of them are in-house "private" (aka surreptitious) recordings. He pays no royalties to the performers. There are discussions on this issue at the Opera Project here, here, and here and consensus was to strongly discourage listing pirate recordings and "pseudo-labels" like that in discographies. I would definitely exclude the 2004 Opera Company of Philadelphia one. If you are going to list the 1959 American Opera Society one, you should list Unique Opera Records Corporation who first issued it on LP, not Premiere Opera. Note that it's a live recording from the November 1959 concert performance in Carnegie Hall. Voceditenore (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[left] I have removed the Premiere Opera recording of the 2004 Phila production and substituted the Unique Opera Records LP as Voce suggests. I would support putting the chart back into the main article unless someone can write a really good summary about the key recordings. Softlavender is correct, above, that Wikipedia:Splitting does not support removing the information here. The article is not very long, and the chart is not that big (now only 9 productions). Plus, a couple of days ago, I put the chart into a more compact format with a slightly smaller size that I think made it fit well into the article. Someone reversed my edit, saying that he thought it made the info harder to see, but I still think it looked better and more compact. You can always type cont. + if you want to view it in a larger size. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Should we add this link to the ELs?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjLQCgy0gEA This was posted to Youtube by the opera company. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is OK, as it's from the Philadelphia Opera Company's official channel. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about one of the Felicity Lott production? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1lQJ4Oc_VY or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBktv3cA-4Y&NR=1 -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are copyvios, don't link. The first is undoubtedly taken straight from the DVD and the second is from a TV broadcast.Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did Garanca record the score?: Here she sings one of the arias: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPHcW4MxcRo -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a copyvio, don't link. She recorded this aria on her Deutsche Grammophon CD Aria Cantilena. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First English premiere

[edit]

We say that Mrs Howard Paul played the Grand Duchess at the November 1867 British premiere at Covent Garden, citing an article by Andrew Lamb. One hesitates to contradict such a leading authority, but all the press reports of the production say that the role was played by Julia Matthews – including The Times, 19 November, p. 6, London Evening Standard, 19 November, p. 3, Morning Advertiser, 19 November, p. 3, The Era, 24 November, p. 11, and The Observer, 24 November, p. 3. According to The Liverpool Daily Post, 14 April 1868, Mrs Howard Paul took over the role when the Covent Garden production was sent on tour after the London run (and later played it in a revival in the West End). Barring objections, I propose to amend our text accordingly, if that's all right? – Tim riley talk 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I agree. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tim riley talk 21:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Grande-Duchesse_de_Gérolstein&oldid=1201942857"