Jump to content

Talk:Repertoire of Plácido Domingo

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

Inclusion in the list / Missing roles

[edit]

Exactly what is the criteria for a role appearing on this list? Why, for instance, does the Berlioz Requiem have a place on it, but not the Verdi, or for that matter, Andrew Lloyd Webber? Why is a symphonic vocal role like Das Lied von der Erde included, but not the Beethoven 9th? Why is a musical theater role like Man of La Mancha cited, but not My Fair Lady (as one of Alfred P. Doolittle's friends, which was, IIRC, Domingo's first ever professional stage appearance)? DrGeoduck (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DrGeoduck, I suggest we start a list of "missing roles" here and include whatever information we find. Here is a first batch of roles (role name, opera, composer, debut date, theatre/location) that are not yet in the list:

Please write information about the roles you think are missing (e.g. info on the My Fair Lady LP, etc.) here below. The more information the better. Once we agree on the roles to add, we can at some point put them into the list. (Please do better not muck around with the table directly... Thanks.) 83.78.141.25 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the My Fair Lady LP (the one in Spanish) precede or follow the stage appearance of this role? 83.78.141.25 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since this discussion was started three years ago with nothing added to the article since then, I've gone ahead and added an "Additional roles (partial)" table to the article. I think it's important that these other roles not be added to the main list. The official list from his website is what he considers to be his repertoire and what the press uses. We should stick to that in the initial key list, except where obviously it simply hasn't been updated with his most recent role(s) yet. For the new table, I've added the roles mentioned here on the talk page, plus roles discussed on the main Plácido Domingo article, recorded parts listed in his discography, and the ones he mentions in his autobiography, My First Forty Years (including the photos of him as the tenor torrero Rafael in El Gato Montes from 1958). I hope others will add to it too, if they come across additional roles or can fill in more details about the parts listed. Rmm413 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gato Montes is listed twice with the same role of Rafael. Please correct. 2A02:1205:5014:DA00:F035:83A2:C6BD:5821 (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro sentence

[edit]

Purpose of this discussion section: we are discussing here the introductory statement to this page: 

 Perhaps the most versatile of all living tenors,

This brief introductory statement was part of this page since its creation (13 October 2009‎), and actually long before (because this page was originally part of the general Plácido Domingo page and separated out into this separate page on 13 October 2009‎). That means, it has introduced this page for a very long time. On 26 June 2013‎, User Viva-Verdi removed it and gave the easy reason "remove POV intro". This removal was several times undone but without success. It is an easy removal since it's easy to flag something as a point of view while it is much more difficult to explain why it is not. Moreover, it's totally inappropriate to ask for external sources because the information on the page itself is a proof of fact: by listing so many roles of so many operas from so many periods we have a proof in itself.

Why do we want this introductory statement:

  • It was part of this page for many years
  • It is in no part a "Point of view", since
    • it says "perhaps the most versatile" (leaving it open that there are other tenors who might be equally versatile or even more)
    • it restricts to "living tenors" (although he's actually the most versatile of all tenors ever if not say of all opera singers ever).
  • This very page shows that he's sung so many roles (142).
  • There is no wikipedia page showing that there is any other opera singer out there who's singing equally as any roles or even more.
  • It is only fitting that a small nice introductory statement makes a point of stating what an achievement this huge repertoire is.
  • We have personally put much time and energy into the correction and updating of this wikipage and it is unjust to have this small sentence part removed by someone who never contributed to this page before.

We therefore strongly ask for a reinsertion of this very brief introductory statement,

  • unless another major opera singer is found who sings a larger repertoire (more than 142 roles) (but don't come with singers who only sing bit parts...)
  • unless this theoretic unexisting other opera singer has a wikipedia page listing those roles.

We don't mind a slight rewording of the statement.

Let us also say that is very sad that user Viva-Verdi is the one who removed the introductory statement (and thereupon found support by other "editors" who simply technically noted the page undo and have, most probably, no real knowledge about the operatic field). To address you directly: When you are a Verdi lover, as you tell on your talk page, then certainly you should know that Plácido Domingo has sung the whole tenor repertoire (he has issued a 4CD set of all tenor arias by Verdi) and he's now issuing a CD of several baritone arias. So do you really have another opera singer out there who is more versatile in Verdi? And who's more versatile in the whole repertoire (from baroque to Spanish zarzuela over Italian, French, German, Russian opera etc. etc.)? Answer: No, you don't have a more versatile opera singer, and therefore it is only right and fair to reinsert the original statement: 

 Perhaps the most versatile of all living tenors,

83.77.253.211 (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response
Well, you presume too much and you don't understand how Wikipedia works for registered users whose email addresses are on file, etc.
Firstly, any registered user can set up a Watchlist, i.e. we are alerted about articles to review when an edit has been made on them. I have about 1,800 opera articles on my Watchlist, have been editing on Wikipedia since 2005, and have spent some time on the Domingo article a few months ago re-structuring it by creating sub-headings under which info on his baritone roles and his opera director functions is placed.
As a result User:MichaelBednarkek and I probably both have this article on our Watchlists (and both of us are part of the WikiProject:Opera and regularly edit and write on opera topics.) I don't know the background of User:Yintan, but he/she clearly found your changes him/her self and made his/her own reverts alone. There is no question of rounding up support from the two other editors who have reverted your material. Typically, when I see an anonymous IP editor making changes, I take a look at what has been changed. The length of time that text has been in place is totally immaterial. I rarely look at the changes made by registered editors whom I know from their work to be reliable.
Since Wikipedia works on the principle of consensus and upon the verifiability of material added, it is important to find reliable 3rd parties (experts in their fields) to agree and support any statement. That is the point which User:MB makes. I know perfectly well that Placido Domingo is a major operatic talent: no dispute. I've heard him sing in San Francisco in the 1970s, in the Washington DC area and in Europe from the 1980s onward, and at the Met. I've also seen/heard two of his baritone roles. Our own opinions do not count, so I won't begin to tell you what I think about Domingo as a baritone.....
Viva-Verdi (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Viva-Verdi. To confirm your answer: I simply came across the edit while vandal hunting. It showed up in Huggle (and it didn't say "Perhaps" at the time, see my remark further down). Cheers,  Yintan  21:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your notification at User talk:Michael Bednarek#Plácido Domingo repertoire; however, I'm curious why User:Viva-Verdi and User:Yintan whose removal of the disputed phrase preceded mine have not been notified. Also thank you for raising the matter here instead of continuing to re-insert the phrase.
You're welcome! User:Yintan has been notified on his German talk page (his English talk page is blocked). And User:Viva-Verdi was informed via my talk page. 83.77.253.211 (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of Wikipedia's core policies is verifiability of article content by reliable sources. Original research in the form of drawing conclusions from primary sources is not permissible. It's very simple: unless a reliable source calls Domingo "perhaps the most versatile of all living tenors", no Wikipedia article can make such an assertion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here you have three reliable external sources:

Cheers! 83.77.253.211 (talk)

Hi all. I just got notified of this discussion. The phrase I reverted didn't say "Perhaps the most volatile", it just stated he was the most volatile[1]. A major difference in my opinion. Apart from that I haven't got much to add. I agree with Michael Bednarek and his remarks about drawing conclusions and verifiability, which is why I reverted in the first place.  Yintan  12:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Round-up: Thanks, User:Viva-Verdi, for your explanations. To keep the record straight, it was not the anonymous user (= me) adding any text, but it was the registered user (= you) removing a sentence introduction that had been standing on the page for many years! As we can see from the comments by User:Yintan (who is BTW a he if you care to look up his profile), the formulation with "perhaps" was most likely fine enough. I can live with the sentence you found by Tim Rice, although I would say the present formulation gives a little too much weight on him and his career (after all the article is about Plácido Domingo and not about this journalist). But since you actually upgraded the formulation to "the most versatile, intelligent", I don't mind too much :-) Speaking of consensus finding, it would have been advisible IMO to propose the sentence here first before including it into the wiki page. As you may have seen, I proposed three external sources myself... After all, what's the point of opening a special discussion here if you edit the page at your will anyway? 83.77.253.211 (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Length of time that something has been on a page does not make it right.
The whole point of using a ref. from someone like Tim Page is that he is a reputable source with credentials to back his statements. In future, I suggest you do a rather more thorough search for reliable references to support whatever statements you want to make. Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And I suggest you do a rather more thorough search and work on concensus finding before you remove any part of this page, to which I have contributed about 75% of edits (nearly all anonymous using, over time, various IP numbers). 83.77.253.211 (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware of WP:OWN? The edits by myself and others may not have been to your liking but they were completely legit.  Yintan  15:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure and I am in no way claiming article ownership, I'm just saying that I have worked on this article quite a bit (certainly more than the three users involved in this discussion) and some of you guys were treating me as "anonymous user", "has anyway no idea how Wikipedia works", "let's point him to the basic intro pages on Wikipedia", "should definitely heed our advice", "has not done a thorough search", peppered with ironic comments on your talk pages and change headings, etc. Without my raising the issue that the intro should not be removed, it would have stayed removed and we would not have ended up with the present solution, even if little me is only an unregistered user (and this not without reasons). 83.77.253.211 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion nobody has been rude to you or treated you unfairly. So don't play the downtrodden IP editor-card please, there's no need for it. Thanks.  Yintan  22:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend to CLOSE and REMOVE this section, since nothing has been added to the discussion for nearly 5 years. 85.1.77.160 (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Domingo's repertoire includes roles he just sang on recording. Why?

[edit]

It can be useful with a repertoire section on an important singer like Domingo. Enrico Caruso also has a repertoire list, but there is some differences.

146 roles are listed in Domingo's repertoire, including symphonic works. About two thirds of these are such he never performed on the stage. No other opera singer count roles they just sang on recording in their repertoire.

Also, some roles are counted multiple times, like Verdi's Simon Boccanegra (1857) and (1881) version. Well, there is some difference between the Boito and Piave version, but it is not two different operas, and this does not inflict Adorno's role as much. If different versions of operas would be counted as separate operas, then the same logic should apply to operas in his repertoire like Les contes d'Hoffmann, Don Giovanni, Iphigenie en Tauride etc which exists in several versions.

The "official" repertoire is simply flawed, and make Domingo's role count as bigger than it is. It does not have any encyclopedical validity, it is just fan work. Why should it be reproduced here? If Domingo's roles in recordings in studio as well as the roles he sang on the stage would be seperated, it would be more valid. SaintGeorg (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "official" with quotes, but indeed an official list, since this list has been published by the singer himself. As such, it has an undisputed validity, even if it may be "flawed". As you can see, there are as many roles counted twice as they are missing roles. The total count is about the same. 85.1.77.160 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The official lists, i.e., the one on the Placido Domingo website, lists 138 roles, not 149. I haven't gone through it with a fine-toothed comb to see what is not on the official site list, but it definitely does not include, for example, the Berlioz Requiem, the Faust Symphony, Das Lied von der Erde, and Man of La Mancha. But at the same time, Domingo's publicists are saying that his upcoming Zurga in Salzburg will be his 150th role. I'm betting dollars to donuts that his publicists are using this page, which uses absurd criteria that no one seems to understand to come up with an inflated number.DrGeoduck (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I misspoke--the website *does* list Man of La Mancha, and it fails to list two operatic roles (Figaro in Barber of Seville and Rodrigo in Don Carlo), but the number of roles is still a ways from 150.DrGeoduck (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Repertoire_of_Plácido_Domingo&oldid=1205042251"