Talk:Orfeo ed Euridice

proposed shortening of intro

Hello, I was looking at this article, and it struck me how long the introduction is. If there are no objections, I propose having a much shorter introduction, and moving most of the content about the different versions of Orfeo to another section, below the table of contents. Any thoughts on this? Thanks. --Kyoko 14:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. Per WP:LEAD, the current version isn't really on. I've got the Bowman recording arriving in a few days, so I'm hoping it will have some good info I can use to work on this article. Cheers, Moreschi 15:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have the Kowalski, Podles, and (I forget who's on Naxos) recordings myself... it's an opera I've actually seen, one that I like a lot and one of the few operas I have multiple recordings of. Maybe I'll make this my pet project for the time being. Maybe. Thanks for the quick response. --Kyoko 15:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy. By a strange coincidence (hmm?) this was going to be MY next BIG thing as well, so we can work together In Sweetest Harmony. Cheers, Moreschi 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This one has a long history. It dates back to 2003, before we had formats to follow. It would certainly benefit from the introduction being split up into more sections - in the same style as other opera articles. Having clearly organized sections is also helpful for an opera with multiple versions (like Orfeo). (Also I'd recommend checking out the basic facts with Grove, which can then serve as a basic reference. I'd do this myself except that I am separated from my books right now.) - Kleinzach 16:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

personal impression of decline of mixed versions

Hello all, I'm not sure precisely how to word this, but I have the impression that along with the rise of the period performance movement (or however you call it), the use of countertenors became more common with Orfeo, and the number of performances (or at least, recordings) that mixed and matched elements from Vienna and Paris declined sharply. Is this impression correct, and furthermore, would something about this belong in the article? Thanks. --Kyoko 15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as far as I'm aware, and most definitely yes. The thing is that the French voice - the haute-contre - has virtually vanished, largely because the technique of singing in that manner - a high tessitura and light tone blurred with falsetto at the top - has been lost. Most recordings these days use either a countertenor or a woman, and stick largely to one version. Best, Moreschi 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with mentioning this shift in performance/recording is that I'm not sure if something like that can be supported by an easily citable source. --Kyoko 18:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Recordings

This section is way too big, and urgently needs cutting down to size IMO. Any other opinions? Moreschi 17:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It is getting pretty big. Perhaps a single representative sample of each version might be better, though that could be interpreted as playing favourites. I suppose it is, at that. For what it's worth, I had added the Podles 1859 Berlioz version because it was a recording in French with a contralto, as opposed to von Otter's mezzo-soprano voice. Not that there's anything wrong with mezzo-sopranos. --Kyoko 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. It's not that long. It could actually be a lot longer - it's a popular opera. I don't know how these things are decided. Watch out for the NPOV paranoiacs though if you do make a selection. --Folantin 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. There is everything wrong with mezzos:)) Joking apart, I think that's a pretty good solution. It also just be one section - get rid of all the subheadings - and put details that were in the headers in brackets. Cheers, Moreschi 17:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Folantin does have a good point that if recordings are excluded, someone might complain. I still think that the page would be better if the content about the recordings wasn't so large compared to the rest of the article. That means one of two solutions: trim the recordings list (pretty easy to do), or expand the other content (a bit harder). Speaking of expanding the content, see the prior discussion about the perceived decline of mixed versions. --Kyoko 18:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, why not base what recordings are included upon what sells best at Amazon? Seriously. Then people can't complain - we're just including the most popular recordings for each version. No problemo. There's lots of stuff from Grove that I'm planning to put into this article over the next few days, so expanding the content will not be a problem. Cheers, Moreschi 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. Everybody is having a good idea! I would like to add references to the material that I've added, but I'm still unfamiliar with how to do this (yes, despite having done it before). Hopefully I'll get around to this soon. --Kyoko 18:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As an unreconstructed completist, let me say I really like long lists of recordings, particualrly those that include early recordings. In this case, with all the different versions, long recording lists are particularly valuable. I although think we should be careful to avoid POV recommendations. - Kleinzach 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy long lists of recordings too, but I'm just concerned that such lists will be seen as unencyclopedic and not proper for Wikipedia. I wouldn't delete such a list if I saw one, but some people might. I guess I'm trying to find the right balance between inclusionism and deletionism. --Kyoko 19:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem with a longish list, especially given the amount of Pokemoncruft allowed on Wikipedia. --Folantin 19:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that at this point, perhaps the non-recording content should be expanded first before worrying about trimming the recordings list. As you can tell, I'm not committed either way between inclusionism and deletionism. Note to self: must start adding more to article. --Kyoko 19:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Berlioz or 1889

General note: This is an excellent article. Well above the norm for Wikipedia. Congrats to the authors! Regarding the recordings section: Are all of the recordings listed under the Berlioz version actually the Berlioz version exclusively? I don't know, but am guessing that the Italian ones especially are using the 1889 Ricordi combined version. Could someone who knows address this and perhaps add an additional section for the Ricordi versions? Thanks! Markhh (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Table of roles/different versions

The character "A happy shade" doesn't appear in the 1762 version, since the aria "Cet asile/Questo asilo" was written for Paris, and so shouldn't appear in the table, unless someone is planning to augment the table to show the first performers of the various later versions. Even then, I'd be prepared to bet that it may not be clear whether the aria was sung by Euridice or by someone else, and you might prefer to omit the character altogether.

More generally, I don't think I have time to join the O&E GA task-force, but as this opera is a favourite of mine (I have 4 recordings, with Orpheus sung by a contralto, a tenor, a mezzo and a counter-tenor) you may find me adding my 2p here from time to time. One thing I could do to help, if anyone's interested, would be to provide a table of the relationship between the individual numbers (and keys) in the four main versions, based on the one by Max Loppert in "Opera on Record, Vol 1". Another service I could perform would be to look the article over when it's nearly ready. Reading through it just now, my editing finger was itching to make all sorts of amendments to the existing text... --GuillaumeTell 18:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the same thought about the table of roles was running through my teeming brain yesterday - I'll see what I can do. The table of keys - sounds great, please feel free to go ahead when you have the time. I'm just off to add a whole more whack of stuff from Grove. Cheers, Moreschi 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I note the "sexier roles table". Personally I prefer the un-indented German WP lined version but I may be old fashioned . . . however can we have dates of the first performances so that we know what exactly is being referred to? - Kleinzach 18:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, and I don't think that Joseph Legros was an alto castrato... --GuillaumeTell 18:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Will fix. Apologies for one or two balls-ups. Cheers, Moreschi 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just copy what I did with the tables on Alceste (Gluck)? --Folantin 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the tables on Alceste (Gluck) are a good model. Very easy to understand. - Kleinzach 16:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Translation?

The intro to the article says, "...twelve years after the 1762 premiere, Gluck re-adapted the opera to suit the tastes of a Parisian audience...." Wasn't it also translated into French? If so, the article should say so. Regards, -- Ssilvers 19:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was, and the article says so lower down in the Performance History section: "This version, named Orphée et Eurydice, had a French libretto by Pierre-Louis Moline, which was both a translation of and an expansion upon Calzabigi's original text". I don't think this should go into the lead: the lead is meant to summarize the article and not to contain overmuch data, and I have seen GA reviewers be quite strict in enforcing this: some take the line that the lead should contain no data that is not developed further later. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

More sources

Considering that this is a pretty significant work, it would be nice to see an article that didnt lean so heavily on the grove . . . -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

<ref>Innocent look<ref> Well, the Grove is very, very good. The whole thing isn't cited entirely from Grove, anyway, I have introduced other sources. And possible over-reliance on one high-quality, reliable source should not really be a problem for GA, nothing in WP:WIAGA about that: this is more of an objection I would expect to see at FA level.

But if you think it's a major problem, I can try to get some more. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added my source for the 1762/1774 differences. The list of references does need tidying up, however. --GuillaumeTell 16:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The list of references could in fact be much shorter. Are you aware that, when you have several references to the same source, you can simply use the formula:

<ref name="Grove">Grove</ref>

and then for every subsequent reference to the same source use:

<ref name="Grove" />

This way the same source will only appear once in the list of references, with letters directing to the correct place in the article. This is particularly useful for websites, where there are no page numbers to consider. I think this would cut the list to about a third in this case. Lampman 18:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I guess that should be 'notes', not 'references'. I've tried to implement it. Also, you should decide whether you want the references to be on the form of 'Firstname Lastname' or 'Lastname, Firstname'. Lampman 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE specifies Lastname, Firstname. The "cite book" ref for Girdlestone is right, and the ones for Holden seem to me to be wrong. My version of one of the latter is in the refs at the bottom of Der Vampyr. And I think the notes/refs should be in alpha order of author. I'm thinking of putting up some guidance on this, plus some "cite book" cribs, on the Opera Project page. --GuillaumeTell 21:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the Holden refs to conform to Last, First and coauthors. The Grove ref is formatted as Grove mandates; I don't think that should be changed, and the Astrée refs still need formatting. Fvasconcellos 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA

A very nice looking article that does a good job of synthesising its sources. My only real complaint is that in places it appears to be overcited (unusual, I know!). There are several paragraphs that are based on only one source, but have several citations in them. Unless you're dealing with direct quotes or particularly controversial/opinionated assertions, you might want to consider cutting some of them down. Good job, though. MLilburne 20:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

A thought

I wondered if there should be at least a mention of Hector Berlioz's 1859 arrangement of this Gluck opera.Nrswanson (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's discussed quite fully in the Revised versions paragraph. I don't think it's appropriate to mention it in the lead, since Gluck himself wasn't involved (and might not have approved - who knows?) --GuillaumeTell 09:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Spurious reference

This reference [1] was added to the end of the following added statement:

"Musically, the duet in which Orpheus tries to lead reluctant Eurydice out of the Underworld was one of Mozart's models for the multi-emotional ensembles at which he excelled.'"

Nowhere in that reference (a biography of Mozart on NNDB) is this assertion made or even supported by inference. In fact, the NNDB article says:

"Idomeneo is the only opera of Mozart which unmistakably shows the influence of Gluck".

As such, the reference lends false credibility to piece of personal opinion added by the editor. I have removed the reference and replaced it with . If a credible reference is not provided in the next few days, I am going to remove the statement. Voceditenore (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, your right--there was stuff on gluck's influence on mozart but not that particular point. My bad, distracted while reading. I'll try to find something about the duet and mozart's ensembles online--it's totally obvious just hearing the music. I hear it most in Cosi fan Tutte and The Magic Flute. But that's original, I'll see if I can find a source. SingingZombie (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reference to Orphee aux Enfers?

Curious on others' thoughts about adding a bit about Orphee Aux Enfers, which is generally considered a burlesque of this opera and quotes musical lines from it. As the article for Orphee Aux Enfers mentions, The operetta is an irreverent parody and scathing satire on Gluck and his Orfeo ed Euridice Just found it a bit odd that the latter referenced the former but not vice-versa, but as I'm not generally involved in editing I didn't want to add it if it is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.31.103 (talk) 04:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Addio, addio?

I'm interested in the Act 1 aria "Addio, addio", which appears not to be sung in every performance. I have the impression this is because it is specific to one particular version of the opera. I was looking here for clarification and further information, but I find nothing. I don't know if this is the only major version difference that isn't highlighted. Would this aspect benefit from further work? Morag Kerr (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I seem to have missed this question, apologies. The aria is covered in the synopsis: it's the B flat ariette "L'espoir renaît dans mon âme" which comes at the end of Act 1 in Gluck's 1774 revision, the one in French with a tenor Orphée. It also appears (as "Amour, viens rendre", in G) in Berlioz's 1859 edition (long after Gluck's death). "Addio, addio" is the Italian translation of "Amour, viens rendre" and appears in Ricordi's Italian edition of 1889 (even longer after Gluck's death). Essentially, there are only really two genuine versions of the opera (1762 in Italian and 1774 in French), and this aria appears only in the second one (it was written in 1765 for a different work) and is often omitted. Numerous record companies and conductors over the years have mixed the two versions, cutting music, changing keys, giving the role of Orpheus to baritones, etc., etc., etc. Three reasons why the aria isn't heard more often: it's not in the original 1762 version, it's quite difficult to sing, and some people think (e.g. Max Loppert in the 1979 "Opera on Record", ed. Alan Blyth) that it's out of character with the rest of the opera. Hope this helps. --GuillaumeTell 16:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I get it! Morag Kerr (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Some problems about the recordings

I suggest that the whole section about the Recordings should be revised for several reasons, and especially:

• According to my sources Pierre Monteux and Renato Fasano’s recordings cannot be ascribed to the 1762 Vienna version, but to the Ricordi one.
• Georg Solti’s recording, whose score was in fact assembled by Sir Charles Mackerras, is a real "patchwork" (Giudici, p. 254: the author employs the English word) of various versions: in any case, it is a matter of course, at first hearing, that it cannot be properly ascribed to the 1762 Vienna version.
• It might be appropriate that Václav Neumann/Grace Bumbry’s 1966 edition be added to the lists as the first unabridged recording of the 1762 Vienna version; it abides by the critic edition by Anna Amalia Abert e Ludwig Fischer, which had been published in 1963; beforehand it must have been almost impossible to perform the Vienna version failing an available printed score.
• It might be also appropriate that Sigiswald Kuijken/René Jacobs's 1981 edition be added to the lists, as well, as the first recording with countertenor Orpheus and original instruments.
• It is likely that the 1986 Hager recording should be ascribed to the original Vienna version (and not to the Ricordi one), even though it contains cuts and additions from the Paris version.
• No mention of the so-called Dörffel version is made throughout the article although it has been often performed and also recorded especially in the German area.

The sources I have consulted are indicated in the Italian Wikipedia article it:Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck)/discografia, and they mainly consist in:

• Roberto Rossi, Discografia - Christoph Willibald Gluck - Orfeo ed Euridice (Orphée et Eurydice), an essay included in the 70th Maggio Musicale Fiorentino's Programme for the performances of Orfeo ed Euridice, 2007
• Elvio Giudici, L'opera in CD e video - Guida all'ascolto, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 1995. ISBN 88-428-0279-4
• (just as a means of comparison and confirmation) Matteo Marazzi, Backstage: La discografia di Orfeo e Euridice (Opera Disc).

--Jeanambr (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You should make the proposed changes. I think any official recordings which are available on CD or DVD should go into the discography. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What about translating the article it:Orfeo ed Euridice (Gluck)/discografia (which is already prepared) and then linking it to the main article, in the same way as Iphigénie en Tauride discography is linked to Iphigénie en Tauride? I could copy and paste the Italian article into my sandbox and work on its (rough) translation, then Folantin or somebody else could copyedit it and create the new English article.--Jeanambr (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I could copy edit it if you like. The discography for Orfeo is certainly big enough to deserve its own page. --Folantin (talk) 10:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine! I have already copied the Italian article onto my Sandbox and I'll set myself to work in the next few days, without hurrying. Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Alternative Ending?

I watched the production of the Israeli Opera of this opera (under direction of Mariusz Trelinski), and the ending was different then described in the "Synopsis" section (Orfeo and Euridice both died).

In the following you-tube video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyaBIG3IOE8, the comment says:

“There are actually two endings to the opera. In one ending, Orfeo and Euridice are united again on the earth. In the other ending, Orfeo drowns himself in the nearby river...”

I think this should be mentioned in the Wikipedia page as well, with a suitable reference. 132.66.198.126 (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Concert Pitch and French Performances of Orfeo

In the excellent Wikipedia article on Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice, it is stated: "From 1784 to 1859 the Parisian diapason (concert pitch) rose steadily from 820 to 896 cycles per second,[8] thus Gluck's French version for haute-contre became increasingly impractical.[9] "

I am not a professional musician, and I wanted to learn something more about concert pitch, so I clicked the link. In that article, I learned that the concert pitch has varied around the level of 440 Hz. Then it states, "The term formerly used for the unit of pitch, cycle per second (CPS) was replaced by hertz (Hz) in the 20th century in honor of Heinrich Rudolf Hertz. The two terms are equivalent: 1 CPS = 1 Hz."

In the article on Gluck's opera, the values given are essentially twice the value of 440 Hz. If correct, that would mean that 2 CPS = 1 Hz. This inconsistency means that one of the two articles is incorrect.98.218.252.51 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Wallis McClain Wallisindc@me.com

I remember reading that the original French practice was to count the peaks of the waveform. Each cycle has two peaks, one positive and one negative. If the quoted values, 820 to 896, are interpreted as peaks per second they would correspond to 410 to 448 Hz, which seems perfectly reasonable. Perhaps someone with better google-fu can find a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:67C:1810:F051:90B0:8370:3E49:55F2 (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

French title

An anonymous editor has now twice changed the spelling of the French version from "Eurydice" to "Euridice". After looking at fr:Orphée et Eurydice, I reverted that, and now User:Voceditenore also did. I had noticed the anonymous editor's 2nd edit, but did not revert this time because the title page of the French version in the article shows "Euridice". So it seems that today's spelling in French is "Eurydice" (see fr:Eurydice (homonymie) with a REDIRECT from Euridice), but Gluck or his publishers used "Euridice". What should we do? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Michael. I assume you are referring to this 1741 edition of the French libretto. On reflection, it probably is better to use "Orphée et Euridice" for the original French title. Perhaps have a footnote saying that in modern French the title is rendered as "Orphée et Eurydice"? The BnF considers the latter to be the titre uniforme. Voceditenore (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The original libretto reads "Euridice" as well. In the Italian Wikipedia I've accordingly modified the articles referring to the opera also adding the footnote about the modern spelling. BTW: the 1859 Berlioz version seems to have already been titled "Orphée et Eurydice" (cf here).--Jeanambr (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
On the same matter see also please the talk page of the article Les élémens (where the old spelling is retained), and note 1 in the article Les fêtes vénitiennes (where, on the contrary, the modern spelling is adopted).--Jeanambr (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I get the impression that today most French-language sources use Orphée et Eurydice, but many English (and German) sources use Orphée et Euridice, and Grove uses both, in the same article. I suggest we leave the "y" version in the article and add a footnote, "The original spelling of the French title was Orphée et Euridice, but modern French orthography uses Orphée et Eurydice." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I support that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it is the easiest thing to do.--Jeanambr (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible new section: references to this opera in other famous works, perhaps showing how popular it was (obviously that would not be the new section's heading)

The original novel The Scarlet Pimpernel includes a pivotal scene which takes place at the opera (Covent Garden) in which O&E is being performed. This may be noteworthy, rather than a mere bit of trivia, because it shows how popular the opera was. I'm not sure whether the article should mention this, and not sure whether it should be in a new section or one of the already-existing sections, and if so, which one. Please advise, Masters of the Wikiverse. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 05:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I wonder how many would go to Gluck and how many to Monteverdi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The novel (The Scarlet Pimpernel) specifically identifies the opera as Gluck's. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I meant in general, for other cultural mentioning of the myth, or an opera, - Monteverdi is only an example. - I wonder if such a section would fit the FA that his work is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

1774 Naples version

An unknown editor has added a sub-section referring to a 1774 Naples version, allegedly written by Gluck himself. According to Giovanni Vitali (Ad honorem Dei - Vita, morte e miracoli di Giusto Ferdinando Tenducci, evirato cantore detto Senesino, in the theatre programme for the performances of Orfeo ed Euridice at the 70th Maggio Musicale Fiorentino, 2007, p. 45) the 1774 Naples version was substantially "the usual reworking by J.C. Bach" previously given in London, which castrato Tenducci used to perform in Italy in the early 1770s (twice in Florence as well as in Naples). More precise different information may have been collected in the meantime but, in my opinion, a reliable source ought to be reported, maybe from the booklet of Erato's recording. Unfortunately I do not own this record and I am not going to buy it.--Jeanambr (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree Jeanambr. There is no evidence that Gluck had anything to do with this version and it is not by a famous composer such as Berlioz. It doesn't belong as a separate subsection of "Revised versions". For now I have moved copyedited information on this "version" to the recordings section and added a reference. Voceditenore (talk) 08:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.--Jeanambr (talk) 08:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)