Talk:La bohème/Archive 1

Archive 1

capitalization of title?

Could we have an explanation please as to why "La bohème" rather than "La Bohème" is correct? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I moved the page (perhaps prematurely and naively. That is still being discussed right now). Why? The offical title of the opera is "La bohème" with a lower case b. This is due to the rules of grammar and capitalization in Italian. They only capitalize the first word of a title, unless proper names are invovled. I did create a redirect page. I hope you were not inconvienced. If enough people complain, it will get changed back.--DrG 05:12, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Actually, the title "La bohème" is French, not Italian (although the opera is in Italian, it was given a French title). Whether the title of the opera in this article ought to be given in this way or in the way it might often (but not always) appear in English-speaking lands is a different matter, of course. I would add, though, that it is increasingly being seen as "La bohème". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.94.126 (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As the convention in English is to capitalise the B, and this is how the name of the opera typically appears in English, and this is the Wikipedia English article, it should be reverted back. Either way, DrG it is a good thing to have someone so knowledgeable and clearly passionate about the field. 203.198.237.30 07:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The English convention is also to omit the accent grave. The English version is "La Boheme". The Italian is "La bohème" We have something in between with only two words in the title. What should we do with "I Lombardi alla prima crociata" or "Les vêpres siciliennes"? Changing the capitalization changes the meaning of any German opera. --DrG 12:59, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Those interested in this debate may wish to join the one in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera#Original language opera titles. --BaronLarf 11:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have had to change the redirect from La Boheme so that it functions once again. In the English-language Wikipedia we have to help the English-speaking reader, who does not have accents on her keyboard, and who may not know the minutiae of correctness in capitalizing between Italian and German, to reach the desired article. Wikipedia is a service, an idea we sometimes forget. As long as all the redirects are adjusted, it doesn't matter whether the title of a page is exquisitely accurate.Ecxellent if it is, but the user must be able to reach the page easily. It is all too easy to move a page and ignore some redirects. And it's always a good idea, where a Talk page already exists, to give people with that article on their Watchlist a week or so to speak up about a propsed move. --Wetman 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 16:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Meaning of "La Boheme"

Comment on this statement:

• 'LA BOHEME' TRANSLATES TO 'THE BOHEMIANS' and NOTHING ELSE. IT IS NOT A GRAY ISSUE. THIS IS A FOOLISH REVERT WAR WHEN THE MATTER AT HAND IS /NOT/ SUBJECTIVE

• Firstly, the comment uses all capitals which is the wikipedia equivalent of shouting to make your point, and considered VERY impolite.
• Secondly, I dispute the meaning you say it has. How can "La" followed by the singular noun "Boheme" mean something in the plural, such "the Bohemian s "? Even if it does have this figurative connotation, surely a translation into something singular is not only eminently possible, but would be considered the primary and preferred translation. If it is so obviously and indisputably "The Bohemians", why didn't Puccini call it "Les Bohemes" rather than "La Boheme"?
• Thirdly, this matter has various shades of grey and it is very subjective, since:
  • there is never one, final and indisputable translation of any word or sentence in one language into another language, not even "the cat sat on the mat"
  • it is widely acknowledged that the title "La Boheme" does not refer to any one person - in particular, it does not refer specifically to Mimi. We make this very point at Note 1 at the bottom of the article. It derives from Murger's "La Vie de Boheme", which literally says "The Life of Bohemia", but more appropriately is "The Bohemian Life". It is not invalid to refer to the characters as "bohemians", but to insist that the title necessarily means "The Bohemians" and only "The Bohemians" is just wrong.

JackofOz 00:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I was being rude in response to the rudeness of multiple unexplained reverts of what everybody but a small handful of people (such as yourself) would agree is a perfectly fine literal translation, into a make-believe translation that intersperses word(s) not in the original text apparently simply because it's some unexplained tradition. But thank you, finally, for this explanation. It sheds some light on why this phenomenon occurs in this article. It does not, however, make any sense. Secondly, you are correct; my mistake. Then it means The Bohemian and nothing else. I will fix it. Thirdly, the argument that there is never an indisputable translation of a word is unfounded nonsense, so we'll just skip it. Moreover, what is widely acknowledged is often completely wrong. This is another poor argument. Continuing, to say we should make-believe a new translation for The Bohemian simply because of Murger, well, that's just silly. Finally, don't say "we" when nobody has given you right to speak on their behalf. It makes you sound rather egomaniacal.

I can insist dog in French is chien and only chien, and I will be right. You may disagree, in which case I will state unequivocally, that you are wrong, and I will again be right. Indeed, if you are correct, I can say La Boheme means Turkey Drumsticks. After all, if "there is never one [...] indisputable translation of any word or sentence," then all translations are equal, and it's pointless to desire the most exact. I'd like to think at least 50% of professional linguists, or perhaps even a tad more, would disagree with such a notion.

I am sorry you don't like and/or don't understand the author's original title of this work and wish to use this translation as an opportunity to change it. That is not my problem. -Ayeroxor 06:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmmm ... where to begin?

• I only bought into this argument to refute your assertion that "La Boheme" means "The Bohemians" and nothing else. "La Boheme" is never translated into English (I can't speak for other languages), just as "Il Trovatore" and some other opera and ballet titles are never translated into English. The title is always simply "La Boheme". Attempting to say precisely what it means in English in this article is irrelevant and futile. I would prefer that we remove all references to the English meaning of the title. But since you did make a very categorical statement about what it means, and I strongly disagreed with that interpretation, that needed to be challenged.
• The very fact that you have quickly altered your view about what it means, from The Bohemians (plural) to The Bohemian (singular), proves my point that translations are always subjective and subject to change. Another example. For many decades, the English-speaking world knew Marcel Proust's novel "A la recherche du temps perdu" as "Remembrance of Things Past", but when somebody pointed out that a closer translation is "In Search of Lost Time", that's what it's called these days. But during those decades, the former title was considered the only "correct" translation. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of translations of the Bible in English. Which of them is any more "correct" than any other? Views change. Interpretations change. Languages are constantly evolving. Translation is an inherently subjective subject, as there is no one-to-one relationship between one language and another. Even the meaning of a word or sentence in a language can be hotly disputed as to what it means in that language, let alone in any others. This is a huge and complex area of study, and I strongly recommend you take it up and learn more about this fascinating field of human endeavour.
• The diatribe about chien = dog, and right vs. wrong, is so wrong-headed, I hardly know what to say. In most contexts, "chien" would be correctly translated as "dog", but there are other contexts where that would not be an appropriate translation. Many idiomatic expressions in one language have equivalent or roughly equivalent idioms in other languages, but they are not, and should not be, literally translated word for word from one language to the other. There are thousands of examples. I'd have to go and check, but I would imagine that the English expressions "Every dog has his day", "A dog's breakfast", "I've had a dog of a day", and others, would not be translated literally, and in French would probably not even involve the word "chien" at all.
• You put words into my mouth about all translations being equal. I said no such thing. When I say there is never one, final and indisputable translation of words and sentences into other languages, this means there is room for different interpretations, as the Marcel Proust and Bible examples above demonstrates.
• It is not "pointless to desire the most exact translation", which is why linguists debate and debate and debate about the closest translations. But the very fact that those debates happen proves that translation is not a science with an exact, mathematical outcome, but an art involving a wide array of linguistic skills. And how complex is language? More complex than the human brain, when it comes down to it.
• You are still using far too many bolded words, and I still feel like I'm being shouted at. If your arguments have substance, your words will speak for themselves. Words have their own power. That you feel the need to shout at me suggests you are not aware of this, and you have less than full confidence in the words you are using.
• You seem to be saying that you are right because you say you are right, and if I disagree with you, then I am wrong. This is hardly a good basis for the furtherance of the sum of human knowledge.
• Those who use the word "egomaniacal" in reference to others will be judged on their own standards and their own utterances. JackofOz 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

A great discussion on naming conventions. I thought I would add my two cents. The English title of the opera is "The Bohemian Girl". Whether or not that is an accurate translation may still be debated. Whether or not this English title is still in use may also be debated. The English title was approved by Puccini and used in the first English (by Ricordi) edition of the opera. I believe this edition is now out of print, for the opera today is almost always sung in Italian. This was not the case 100 years ago. DrG 09:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• First Spanish edition: La Bohemia (1904)
• First English edition: The Bohemians (1897)
• First German edition: Die Bohème (1897)
• Forth English edition (with new translation and new title): La Bohème (1952) Al pereira 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

• • It may be worth a note to say that Puccini approved these other-language titles. But whether that amounts to La Boheme "meaning" these things in those languages is another question.
  • You say Puccini approved "The Bohemian Girl", and therefore that's what it means. But the first English edition was known as "The Bohemians". Whence this discrepancy? Was this also an authorised translation/title?
  • Some operas are well known in more than language in the English speaking world (eg. "The Mastersingers of Nuremberg" and "Die Meistersinger von Nurmberg"; "The Elixir of Love" and "L'Elisir d'amore"). But "La Boheme" is not one of these. Whatever imprimatur Puccini may have given, this opera has one and only one name in the English speaking world of 2006, "La Boheme" (and the upper case B and lack of grave on the e were intentional)
  • Attempting to say what it "means" is really a futile exercise, in my opinion. As this debate has demonstrated, it does not need to be translated since (a) there will never be agreement as to the meaning, and (b) the title has become embedded in English. It is for all intents and purposes as untranslatable as "Bach" is (ie. we don't call him "John Brook"). JackofOz 13:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't The Bohemian Girl be a translation of La Bohémienne rather than of La Bohème? Joachim57 (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes and the meaning of La Bohème is very, very clear: it is La vie de Bohème. It refers to the peculiar life of all the main characters (the four bohemiens and the two girls), not to Mimì. I don't see where the problem is. This is a collective drama. Al pereira 14:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This proves my point perfectly.

• You now say it "very, very clearly" means "La vie de Bohème".
• Above, you said that Puccini approved it as "The Bohemian Girl".
• You also told us the first English edition was "The Bohemians".
• Ayeroxor also previously insisted that it meant "The Bohemians" ("and nothing else").
• Then when I pointed out a problem with that, he just as strongly insisted that it means "The Bohemian" ("and nothing else").

There are at least 4 different versions now, and everybody keeps on insisting their version is the only correct one. It's clear this will never come to a consensus, so why continue this futile process? "La Boheme" doesn't mean anything other than "La Boheme". It is never further translated into English any more, and attempts to do so can only end in failure and misery. JackofOz 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. Also, consider that I know what the title means since I am Italian. Anyway, I never wrote that Puccini approved it as "The Bohemian Girl". Al pereira 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Al Pereira. It was DrG who claimed it was "The Bohemian Girl", not you. But asserting that you are Italian and therefore know better than anyone what the truth is, is not what this debate is about. Who can claim to be the ultimate arbiter of this? Nobody, not even Puccini because his grasp of English was far from perfect. JackofOz 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean that I know what the title means. Al pereira 23:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Except that you claim it means "La vie de Bohème". Only problem, that is not a translation of anything into English. It is still French. JackofOz 02:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

La Bohème is a kind of elliptical form for La vie de Bohème. Like you know, it refers to an artistical-cultural movement. In Italy we say La Bohème, too, even if the similar Italian movement is called La Scapigliatura. If the 4th English edition used the title La Bohème it means that in 1952 English language people knew what La Bohème means. -- Al pereira 03:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing, Al. "La Boheme" evokes artistic-cultural connotations that are difficult to put into words at all, certainly concisely. To translate the title exactly from French into English is not only difficult but impossible. Translation is not an exact science and does not work that way. If by 1952 the English-speaking world knew what "La Boheme" meant without requiring any further translation, how much truer is that in 2006. "La Boheme" is a far more accurate and concise "translation" of itself than any bumbling literalist attempts by purist linguists. Some things were never meant to be translated. This is one of them. JackofOz 03:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! Al pereira 04:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading this discussion with interest. I checked with the New Grove to get another opinion. They maintain that it is translated as "Bohemian Life." That sounds good to me. I know it is not exact, but for people not schooled in opera, the arts, or culture it would probably help them. 65.28.1.29 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Only one problem. That version of the title is never used except in reference works, and for the life of me I can't see why they bother. If I said "I went to see Bohemian Life last night", nobody would know what I was talking about. Why try to translate the untranslateable? What purpose does this serve? Do they also "translate" Khovanshchina, or La Traviata? JackofOz 06:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course they do! It is probably the best music resource in the world, and they translate just about everything. I agree that people won't call the opera "Bohemian Life," but that's not only reason to translate it. Of all the Amercians who have heard of La boheme, what percentage have any clue as to what it means? Most might know it's an opera or a Broadway show, some may even have seen it, but even fewer will know what the title means. Just because a translation is not exact or commonly used, does not mean it isn't helpful. 07:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A number of opera titles are not routinely translated into English. In part this may be because some people like the "exotic", but it's also in some cases because the titles is effectively untranslatable or the original is a happy phrase that can't be replicated in English (e.g. Così fan tutte), because the meaning is disputed (as here), or because the English translation sounds ridiculous (e.g. Die Fledermaus — somehow The Bat has never taken off as a popular title). Even when La bohème is performed in English, its title is generally (nowadays, anyway) left untranslated. Ondewelle (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

French capitalisation

The title is French. In French, titles are capitalised up to the first noun. For example, Le Petit Prince, La Gloire de mon père, Le Château de ma mère, etc. By this principle, the title should be La Bohème.

As stated by others, Italian rules require only the first word of the title to be capitalised, giving La bohème. English rules, on the other hand, would certainly dictate La Bohème.

What we must decide is whether English, French or Italian rules prevail in this case. — Gulliver ✉ 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have found La Bohème also in important Italian books, as weel as in Dieter Schickling's Catalogue of the Puccini Works --Al pereira 13:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Top Google result is both capitalized. We should have a *gasp* poll. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:49, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

An evil poll

We are trying to determine whether this page should be moved to La Bohème, in which both parts of the name are capitalized. Indicate your "vote" (with a reason, preferably) by signing with four tildes: ~~~~.

Support

1. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 22:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC) as nom.
2. --Al pereira 12:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
3. --I know I'm not a user, but I would still like to vote. For these purposes, I would like to point out that I both "La Bohème" and "La bohème" are accepted. Take this for instance: The Scala theatre website entitles the opera "La bohème" (http://www.teatroallascala.org/public/LaScala/EN/stagioni/stagione1/opera-e-balletto/boheme/opera/index.html) while The Metropolitan Opera website entitles the opera "La Bohème" on their schedual (http://www.metoperafamily.org/metopera/discover/stories/index.aspx). I think this article should be entitled "La Bohème" because it is an English article. It would be a small b if this were an italian opera. Sorry if this is confusing.
4. Strongly support. This is the English Wikipedia. WP:Use English, and restart poll. We should not follow Groves' without hesitation. They are meant for specialists. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We should really follow Groves, which is the last word on all things in Western music. Here is a quote from the New Grove Dictionary of Opera's entry on La bohème: On this occasion Rodolfo and Mimì were played by Edoardo Garbin and Adelina Stehle (the original young lovers of Verdi’s Falstaff), who did much to make La bohème popular in southern Italy in the years that followed. Outside Italy most premières of La bohème were given in smaller theatres and in the vernacular of the country. --Alexs letterbox 22:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
2. This title is not in English, therefore we shouldn't impose English capitalizaton rules on it. Heimstern Läufer 01:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
3. Even those this is English Wikipedia, the title of the opera is in Italian, and I think that the article title should conform to Italian rules, not English. --Kyoko 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Comment struck out because I'm just not thinking straight with this headache, and it's hurting my langauge skills. --Kyoko 22:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
4. The Opera Project's rules on this are clear-cut. There is no common English name for this opera, and therefore the rules for the original language are the appropriate ones. Furthermore, there are redirects from every possible variation of the title, so no-one is going to be misled. And I note that, until this subject was reopened yesterday, there has been no discussion of it since May of last year. --GuillaumeTell 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes, we should follow The Opera Project's rules on this which are based squarely on Grove. - Kleinzach 05:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
6. As above. Daniel 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
7. Nope. NewYork1956 (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Per policy on reliable sources. Both Grove and The Viking Opera Guide use this capitalisation. Since when was La bohème (or La Bohème) English? --Folantin (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Whichever way this goes, people should express themselves in terms of an argument in favour of the English, French or Italian system prevailing. Not just "lower case looks funny". — Gulliver ✉ 23:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

English Libretto

Does anyone know where I can find an English libretto? The only link I found which was suposed to have it (http://www.bohemianopera.com/bohemelibretto.htm) went to a website which appears to have been shut down.Sith Lord 13 00:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The page, on Nov 10, 2006, says:

Mimì, whose candle has been snuffed out, asks Rodolfo to light it

I thought the wind blew out her candle. I'd think of "snuffing" as using a candle snuffer. . . . small point I know, but when I saw the "Capital B" argument, I figured "snuffed" vs "blown" out to be on the same magnitude of importance!

The "Films" section...

...contains a long list of film titles.

Is anyone suggesting that these are film adaptations of the story of La boheme?

Or, how does the opera relate to these films?

Some explanation is needed for clarification, otherwise this is a meaningless list. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Moonstruck uses the music of La bohème. Boheemielämää (La vie de bohème) by Aki Kaurismäki uses Murger, not Puccini. Al Pereira(talk) 08:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of this list and would expect that anything put back in will establish a context for appropriateness. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The films listed need to have some sort of significant relationship with the opera and this relationship needs to be explained and referenced. A list of films which have included music or arias from La Boheme simply for atmosphere or as background music is as pointless as a list of radio programmes that have included music from La Boheme. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a better section would be entitled La bohème within popular culture. This could cover the opera's meaningful influence in other areas beyond just movies. I think particularly including films where La bohème actually played a significant part of the story's plot basis (such as in Rent) or the opera itself played an important role in the film (such as in Moonstruck) would be appropriate on this page. I also do not oppose the mentioning of films that include La bohème in their soundtrack within memorable scenes, beyond just simple background music, such as in The Boondock Saints where the detective repeatedly investigates his crime scenes while listening to the opera (the actual charachter in the film interacts with the music, it's not just "mood music").Nrswanson (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The nature of Puccini's music generally means it only appears in "memorable scenes" even in adverts. The point is not that they shouldn't be noted in this article, but that they should only be noted in this article when their significance to this article is clear and can be referenced. This is not a debate specific to this article, see WP:IPC. The problem is usually that usage may be important in the subject article i.e The Boondock Saints, but is really of no importance to the object (La bohème). To my mind its the same as the article on Money having to have a Money in popular culture section.Mighty Antar (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Traviata?

I wouldn't say that La bohème "has much in common with La traviata, including the death of the heroine and the music ending in C-sharp minor." The story, the music, the style, the structure are completely different. Yes, both Violetta and Mimì die for consumption, but that's all. --Al Pereira(talk) 12:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Performance History (Baz Luhrmann)

Just wondering about the contents of this section which contains a reference to the popularity of the opera and then a great deal about the Baz Luhrmann version. Seems like the latter is being over emphasized (WP:UNDUE?). Just a thought. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Would you like to have a go at abbreviating it? --Kleinzach 02:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Might be easier to move it into derivative works. While it is not quite derivative, it is not quite original either. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The PErformance History adds nothing worthwhile to the discussion. "Recent" surely should includes lots of productions/performances and not make out that the Australian Baz Luhrmann production is the only one worth mentioning the last 50 years! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvondeh (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I moved it. Any other modernizations can go along with it. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Question

Who sang it in the ending credits of the 2004 movie Eternal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.163.10 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis

I made some minor fixes to the synopses (mostly typographical, but not entirely), before noticing later the footnote that says they were taken from a PD source. Since I've altered them (and I gather from the talk page I'm not the first to do so), should we indicate that in the footnote?

One more point which I question but didn't change on the page is the claim that Mimì lives "in a flat below". My understanding is that her room is on the same level as Rodolfo's (ie, the top), though I can't find anything in the libretto to prove it conclusively. Circumstantially, Murger's Francine and Jacques definitely lived on the same floor; Mimì's "guardo sui tetti e in cielo" suggests she's on the top floor, as does her poverty generally. The fact that the source has made other factual errors lessens my confidence in its claim here. Any objection to changing that as well? Iglew (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those Melitz opera plots have terribly convoluted writing and are not always accurate. I've amended the footnote to show that it's "based" on Melitz not "taken from". The bit about the "flat below" strikes me as a later addition. Whatever, I think you should change it, perhaps lives in a "neighbouring flat"? Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. The question is somewhat problematic, since garret/soffito implies the place where the guys live is the only room at the top floor, whereas Francine and Jacques are in two rooms on the same floor (but Jacques doesn't have three roommates). I don't think the librettists bothered to work out the details. (There's also the question of why Mimì didn't meet the other three guys in the stairway, given that they leave right before she arrives. One possible answer is that she was in her room all along and didn't climb the stairway at all, which implies that she's faking it when she faints.) Iglew (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference

I noticed that in the reference for the first footnote, only Roger Parker is named, but the book is actually by Arthur Groos and Roger Parker. I see that both names are in the code, but they don't both appear on the page. Does anyone know how to fix this? Iglew (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out. Fixed now. Iglew (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Murger

In response to Voce's request for the opera project, I tried to "expand upon the relationship to Murger's original". There's an awful lot more that could be said, but I'm not sure how to do it without writing a lengthy essay that wouldn't be appropriate here. I think Voce was imagining a comparison of basically similar stories in order to identify differences, but it's really not so simple. If someone can make it better, I'd welcome that.

As it is, I had to contort myself to avoid saying that the opera's main storyline (ie, Rodolfo and Mimì) is based on Barrière's play — which it plainly is, and anyone familiar with both can read between the lines of the librettists' note and see that they're preemptively defending themselves against charges of plagiarism. But officially it's not, and I don't see any good way of saying otherwise, unless someone can quote a book saying so. Iglew (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Having a library copy of Groos & Parker with me right now, I decided to revisit the section on the origin of the libretto. The information is more thorough now, and I can source it to G&P (pp.58-59). If someone wants to smooth out the tone a little, please feel free. Iglew (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Aria names in synopsis

I made them italic, since that's what the Opera Project style recommendation specifies. Like Voce, I'm not sure I agree with this, but I think there's value in conforming to the standard, and right now that's the standard we've got. The OP isn't so thorough about how to incorporate the translation of the aria name when both are parenthesized within a synopsis text, so I followed the pattern in the Tosca article, which looks good to me. I wonder if this doesn't warrant further discussion at the Opera Project to spell out a preferred style more completely (and perhaps rethink the italics recommendation), so that we can start standardizing it across all operas.

Regarding the title of Musetta's waltz: I believe "Quando m'en vo'" (with the apostrophe at the end) is correct. That's how it appears in the score. But that spelling doesn't redirect to the aria page, so I did it without the final apostrophe (which is how the title appears in Schirmer's anthology version), which does. The page itself has vò with an accent mark, which I've also seen. I'm not sure what's going on there. (I'm moderately familiar with Italian, but that particular phrase confuses me.) If someone wants to restore the apostrophe, please also set up the redirect so it links. Iglew (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't think our standard practice is to italicize aria names. We do italicize the names of operas but usually we do this for "aria titles".Nrswanson (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the body of the synopsis it is common practice to include the Italian first in italics followed by the Eng. translation in quotes. Sometimes, when there is an article for a particular aria, it appears wikified in italics.

However, elsewhere in the body of an article, it does seem that aria names are not italicized. Viva-Verdi (talk)

The o' (o + following apostrophe) in Quando m'en vo' (Musetta's Walz) is used as a substitute for ò when the proper character isn't available. You mostly see it on web pages rather than in print. Vò is an archaic/literary form of vado (I go), often used in operas and in this libretto too. Use vò. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. I guess I always thought it was an apocopation of voglio. Now I see another issue with "me'n". On the aria's page, throughout the article text it appears as "me'n", which matches the score and every other source I can remember, but the article title is "Quando me n’vò" (with a smart apostrophe even!). That would make it "quando me ne vado", and for the first time that sentence actually makes sense to me. But the unexplained inconsistency on the aria page is weird. Iglew (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This article currently fails the criteria for B-class

Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. This article currently fails the criteria for B-class. It fails on several points. Please change the rating for the tag at the top of this talk page accordingly. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

On several points? As far as I can see all that is needed is an expanded lead section. Further, our project has its own assessment scale specifically for operas.Nrswanson (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it fails the criteria on several points. To keep it at a B-class rating at this point is wishful thinking, but it is inappropriate with the article at its present state. See below for more. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Nrswanson (talk · contribs), for agreeing with me that this article in its present state fails the B-class rating [1]. I note that Voceditenore (talk · contribs) also stated: His assessment of La boheme was correct in my view.. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for putting such a great deal of thought into your assessment. That being said, I think C class is much more appropriate than a start class rating which is what you initially demoted the article to.Nrswanson (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The lede of this article is too short

The lede of this article, at three sentences, is way too short. Per WP:LEAD: The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. This should be remedied accordingly. (Yet another reason why a B-class rating of this article in its currently state is inappropriate.) Cirt (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks in-line citations

This article lacks in-line citations. In many cases key facts, or often whole paragraphs, are not backed up by in-line citations. This is another reason why the article in its current state fails the B-class criteria. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This article wholly plagiarizes the Grove Music Online article (subscription access only). Placing citations at the ends of each paragraph is insufficient; quotation marks should be used throughout acknowledging the original wording and scholarship of the Grove article, Julian Budden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.57.70 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. You're right. Way too much of this article is barely changed from Grove. You can thank User:Nrswanson for this. (Actually, you can't any more - he's been banned from Wikipedia). --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've removed all the suspect material I could find. --Folantin (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks information

There are six sentences on "modernization", and yet many of these later performances were covered in much more detail in secondary sources. One of them even received a Tony Award. There is little to no information in the article from secondary sources discussing how the piece has been received in the press/media and from critics over time. Another reason the article currently fails the B-class criteria. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Source for drug names

The list of chemical compounds with unusual names lists several pharmaceutical compounds named after the opera or its characters. Most are anthracycline antibiotics. Perhaps this is worth mention in the article? --Pyrochem (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is of such marginal importance as to not be worth bothering about. Regarding the opera, it is little more than trivia, metionable in the list if you like (I see that it is in one place already), but not here. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Wow this article is now just swimming in a sea of red. Isn't there some reasonable limit on how many red links an article should contain? Markhh (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not the article per se, just the section Performance history. I think this section was introduced by User:Singingdaisies (now blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Nrswanson) on 6 October 2009 in a string of 20 edits.

In my mind, there are two questions: 1) does the article need such a detailed performance history; 2) do all the artists have to be linked?

ad 1): I'm not in favour of discarding such detailed information; ad 2): a responsible way of unlinking would be to check the incoming links for each name and unlink those which only have one, and check for articles in other languages of Wikipedia and keep the links for those (or modify them to interwiki links). However, given the large number of such red links, this seems impractical to me. I suggest to unlink all red links in this section. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the latter suggestion. Also - and I'm just talking here - I wonder if this info would more useful in a table, something like "Early productions" with the dates, locales, singers, etc in some kind of column arrangement? Markhh (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Surprised to read that Caruso sang Parpignol at Covent Garden in 1899. Can this be confirmed? He never sang comprimario parts at all that I've read about and by this time he was singing leads all over Europe. Was it a one-off gimmick/cameo? Thanks, Markhh (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Caruso: the cited source only mentions him as Marcello in Turin (1898). The article contradicts itself a bit about the 1st performance at Covent Garden (1897 vs 1899). I suspect the former was a touring production (in English) and the latter an in-house production in Italian. Stanford lists 1897 as the 1st at the ROH. According to the article Enrico Caruso, he made his début at the ROH on 14 May 1902 as the Duke in Rigoletto. I suggest to delete that part of the sentence ("Enrico Caruso as Parpignol"). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The contradiction is my fault, I'm afraid. The earlier text was more specific that 1899 was the first ROH in-house Boheme. I'll fix that and delete Caruso as Parpignol. Markhh (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)