Talk:The Mikado/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original comment

FYI, Gilbert and Sullivan themselves referred to their works as "comic operas" or "operas," never as "operettas." I have therefore restored that phrase. Marc Shepherd 04:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anime version?

I have often toyed with the notion of an anime version of the Mikado.Who else feels this way? R.G. 04:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)R.G.

That is like the funniest shit I have ever heard.. :P - UnlimitedAccess 09:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would watch that. The Wednesday Island 13:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always thought it would be a great addition to the Project A-ko series. Not R 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Dubious

The old story that Gilbert was inspired by a falling sword has long since been proved false. (I just don't have time at the moment to put in a correction.) I don't know any source for the claim that the Japanese were ambivalent about the opera, or that the town of Chichibu performs the opera frequently. Marc Shepherd 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Gilbert probably made up the falling-sword story, but the article doesn't claim Gilbert's story was true, just that he said it was, and that it was dramatized in Topsy-Turvy (both verifiably true statements). Also, Gilbert certainly visited Knightsbridge; he even refers to the ongoing exhibition in one line of The Mikado. So I've removed that {{disputed}} tag, but as I've never heard of Chichibu outside this article, I can't comment on the other one. --Quuxplusone 03:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, Gilbert never even said that the sword fell, only that the story was inspired by a sword. Marc Shepherd 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now had time to look up the reference debunking the falling sword story, and updated the article accordingly. Marc Shepherd 23:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was Bulldog in the fraiser episode (down the bottom of the page under trivia) that instigated the prank in that show but instead 2 recently hired shock jocks.

I think you are right, it was recently aired on repeat in the UK and it was two shock jocks who start laughing at the end. If I get time today I'll google for the episode guide and look at the cast list and summary to see if I can confirm it.

Chichibu Discussion

I've moved this to the "Controversy" section, where it more logically belongs. I could find no evidence that the town of Chichibu "regularly" performs the opera, only that they have performed it. I also found no reference connecting Chichibu to anything that occurs in the 1938 film, and therefore removed that from the discussion. Marc Shepherd 16:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we want to say anything about the professional Chichubu Mikado that was presented in Buxton? --Ssilvers 00:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese manners?

I have never read this. Where did you get it? --Ssilvers 15:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am Japanese, and I'm afraid the play does confuse Japanese styles with Chinese ways. For example, some female dancers are wearing ancient Chinese costumes. And another thing to point out is that Nanki-Poo holds the shamisen like the guitar and plays it with his bare hand.Tmesipteris 12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you are confusing some particular production with the show itself. I am not aware of anything in the libretto suggests confusion of Asian cultures. Gilbert and Sullivan based the Japanese stylings in the play on what they saw at the Knightsbridge exhibit of 1884. Their perception of Japananese styles was, doubtless imprecise, and of course, the play is not about Japan at all, but about Britain, disguised in Japanese clothing, but I do not believe that there is any intentional reference to China or Chinese styles in the libretto or stage directions. --Ssilvers 19:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I see. I watched the play in DVD, which was the version performed in Stratford, Canada. And whether it is intentional or not, it can be the case that some things the people there believe are Japanese do not sound Japanese to us. But yes, as you say, I think it depends on which production it is. Tmesipteris 13:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Stratford productions are notorious for varying from the intentions of G&S. If you read the libretto and listen to a D'Oyly Carte recording, I think you will see that any suggestion of Chinese customs was entirely the creation of the Stratford directors. --Ssilvers 15:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Tmesipteris 13:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That said, the whole burying the wife alive with her husband mention always gave me the vague feeling that it was referencing something other than Japan. Dido and Aeneas? Something Indian, Arabic, or Egyptian involving emprorers taking their slaves and wives with them? But I've never worked it into a definate thought. Adam Cuerden 20:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Song list

Revised it. Alter as you wish. Adam Cuerden 15:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Pish-Tush

In the original production, Frederick Bovill, who played Pish-Tush, proved unable satisfactorily to sing the low notes in the Act Two quartet, "Brightly dawns our wedding day". Pish-Tush's line ends on a bottom F, and the piece lies lower than the rest of the role. An extra character, Go-To, was introduced for this scene. The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company continued this practice. The role of Go-To is sometimes removed, and Pish-Tush reinstated into the quartet, when played by someone with a sufficient range.

...This is pretty awkward indeed. Perhaps it's time to lose this footnote and start a new section so that we can tease out all the thoughts being lumped together in that one overworked footnote? Adam Cuerden 23:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's so bad. I think we have other things that are higher priority. Why don't you leave this alone for a week and come back to it with a fresh mind. --Ssilvers 00:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not mine. Just things like the second sentence interrupting the natural flow between the first and third seems awkward to me, and the "The D'Oyly Carte Company continued the practice" seems awkward. Of course, you may have notived that I prefer sentences with several clauses, to allow conjugations and prepositions to draw out the connections between the thoughts, more than most... Adam Cuerden 07:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took a crack at fixing it. I also removed the name of the original Pish, since it will be listed in Marc's chart of DOC performers. However, it is a long footnote, so feel free to move it to text somewhere, if there is an appropriate section. --Ssilvers 13:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the solution is to add a "Versions" section (like Ruddigore) where the situation can be explained more expansively. Pish-Tush's role was curtailed in at least three places — he was eliminated from the Madrigal, he was eliminated from "So please you sir," and he lost the line "Why, who are you who ask this question?" I think it's a fair inference that Mr. Bovill was not considered up-to-snuff for a good deal of his part, and it's worth noting that he was not accommodated in the cast of the next opera.

There are other things to mention, like the re-ordering of "The sun whose rays" and the List song, the shortening of "Were you not to Ko-Ko plighted," and so forth. But I don't think it's urgent, and I'd rather work on it when I'm at home and have my references in front of me. I'd probably get it 90% right from memory, but I'd rather work from sources and make it 99%. Marc Shepherd 13:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, adding a Versions section seems like a good idea, and we probably need it in other shows too, even if it may be brief. But, the evidence is that Bovill was good in the role. It appears that he could not handle the lower parts of the role that were assigned to others, but he seems to have handled the higer parts of the role well. According to "The Entr'acte", Saturday, 28 March 1885, Bovill "proves himself to be possessed of a very useful voice, and so also does another gentleman, who sings the basso music in the madrigal." Bovill played the role throughout its run, and Carte engaged him again in 1891 for the Royal English Opera House to play the Squire in the first production of Ivanhoe and later as the Chancellor in La Basoche. He was also in the cast of the 1898 Zonophoney Thespis. --Ssilvers 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reference Query

The reference for the Mikado being one of the most frequently performed pieces of theatre of all time seems somewhat suspect to me. It trots out the same old "Gilbert snubbed for knighthood", etc fallacies. I believe the information about the number of performances, but surely we can find a more generally accurate cite. Adam Cuerden 12:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ssilvers has now done so. Marc Shepherd 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vocal ranges in roles

Pooh bah has lots of high singing. In See How the Fates, he sings the tenor line. I don't see how we can call Pooh Bah a bass-baritone and Hildebrand, which is very low, a baritone. --Ssilvers 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, people have been putting in vocal ranges based on their personal impressions. I suggest we take a time-out, review what has been done for the thirteen extant G&S operas, and agree on a standard which we'll memorialize at WP:G&S. Then we won't have to deal with the problem every time someone goes in and changes the characters' vocal ranges, which seems to be happening all the time.

I have no problem with saying that Pooh-Bah is a baritone, rather than bass-baritone. I wouldn't say, however, that he has the tenor line in "See how the fates." There is no tenor in that number. He has the higher of the baritone lines. Marc Shepherd 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how we're really going to arrive at any satisfactory "standard". It's very subjective and depends not only on the range of the role but the tessitura and general "weight" of the role. There are times, particularly in the first act, where Pooh appears to be a bass-baritone, and times, mostly in the act II, where he is definitely not a bass-baritone. So, I think it is safer to call him a baritone. As I said before, Hildebrand sits very low for a baritone, despite the one high "F" that he sings in "That's the long and the short of it", and I really think the better description for him is bass-baritone. Other than that, I don't think there have been many changes in the vocal range, and these two have been discussed mostly between the two of us. --Ssilvers 13:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. I saw that you reverted Luiz to "baritone", an assessment with which I agree. This may have prompted you to say that "people have been putting in vocal ranges....", but again, I really think that it is not a big problem -- there are a very few major roles that people like to argue about, and unless you are suggesting putting a list of roles that we ought to have a consensus on, I don't see what else there is to say about these on the project page. --Ssilvers 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise: I came to the page and found him listed as "baritone or bass-baritone (See below)" or something like that, looked below, did a text search by his name, concluded he must have gotten mixed up with Pish-Tush, and so, thinking of "I am so proud", chose one. Obviously, I chose wrongly. Adam Cuerden 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No prob! Marc Shepherd 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, you were not really wrong. Indeed, my opinion expressed above bucks the commonly-held conception that P-B is a bass-baritone. But, as I note above, I think that it's better played by a baritone who can handle the higher parts of the role as well as the lower, so a versatile voice is called for with, preferably, a fairly dark sound. So, it's a close call. --Ssilvers 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Really, his line in the Glee ("See How the Fates") is not that high. Highest note is a D, I believe. However, it might be worth noting that his part is mainly written in the treble cleff, and the actor is often the same person as who plays parts like Samuel in Pirates of Penzance and Grosvenor in Patience. Also, he doesn't go as low as Ko-Ko or Pitti-Sing do in the Trio "The Criminal Cried." They go down to low Gs, but PB only goes down to an A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.162.205 (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if any milage could be made out of swapping Pooh-Bah and Pish-Tush's lines around for amateur use? The plot rarely hinges on which of the two is there at any one time.

Obviously, I don't support this as a general practice! But it might solve casting difficulties here and there Adam Cuerden 23:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a few brief sections where Pooh-Bah has the highest baritone lines and Ko-Ko the lowest. It's common practice to swap these. Not R 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The 1939 Motion Picture Version

I'm surprised there's no real mention of the movie adaptation in full color, back when color films were still in the clear minority. I think it may have even been the first color movie by Universal. Any film buffs willing to tackle this one? --71.207.226.188 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I added a heading for Film versions and got the ball rolling. If you follow the links, there is a lot of info that could be extracted. Happy editing! --Ssilvers 03:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made some updates to that section. Note that the 1939 film was not a D'Oyly Carte undertaking. Marc Shepherd 16:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The film section still lacks considerably. At least three notable versions have been made in teh second half of the century (including the the film of the Stratford production, and the Eric Idle production), none of which are mentioned. 69.178.122.114 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Stratford and English National Opera versions are not films. Unlike those mentioned in the article, they never had a theatrical release. They are stage productions that were issued on home video. Whether they are particularly notable is a whole other question — there are other Mikados on video too — but these are not films. Marc Shepherd (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A more interesting question might be whether or not to mention the Stratford and ENO productions themselves (or whether any other productions are notable enough to mention) under the productions section. There have been so many non-DOC productions of The Mikado, that one could argue that none of them are "notable".... -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Isn't that last one a bit obscure? Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, here's a whole list of links I have cut:

• Allan Sherman did a parody of the "Tit-willow" song ("On a tree by a river"), in which the bird in question talks and sings with a stereotypical Jewish accent. Sherman is so impressed by the bird's singing that he takes him down from his branch, and home "to mein split-level ranch". His wife misinterprets the gift and fricassees the bird, whose last words are, "Oy! Willow! Tit-willow! Willow!"

• Sherman also did a variant on "I've Got a Little List", presenting reasons why one might want to seek psychiatric help, and titled "You Need an Analyst".

• Eureeka's Castle, a children's television show, did a parody of "I've Got a Little List" in a Christmas special, called "Just Put it on the List," wherein the twins, Bogg and Quagmire, describe what they'd like for Christmas.

• Other well-known actors who have played the role of Ko-Ko are Eric Idle and Bill Oddie, with both appearing in the same English National Opera production of "The Mikado" (Bill Oddie took over the role of Ko-Ko after Eric Idle left the production). Dudley Moore played the role when the production toured the United States.

• The climax of the 1978 film Foul Play takes place during a performance of The Mikado. In this film, Dudley Moore appears as the orchestra conductor of the opera.

• There are amateur performances of "Three Little Maids from School" in British comedy television series such as Keep it in the Family and Fresh Fields.

• In the 1981 film Chariots of Fire, Harold Abrahams first sees his future wife as one of the "Three Little Maids from School".

• Rian Johnson's 2005 film Brick features a scene where Laura (Nora Zehetner), the femme fatale, performs a section from "The Sun Whose Rays" while playing the piano at a party. Originally, she performed the entire piece, but the second half was edited for time. The entire performance is contained on track 3 of the soundtrack.

• In the CSI episode "Suckers", a case is solved thanks to Grissom's remembering the song "Three little maids from school are we", and there are many references to The Mikado.

• In Frasier episode "Leapin' Lizards", workplace prankster Bulldog impersonates the voice of an esteemed friend of Niles Crane in a phone call to Frasier. After Frasier boasts that many have asked to see his "Yum-Yum", he is coaxed into going into his best falsetto voice to perform 'Three Little Maids' from The Mikado live over the air.

• In the Angel episode "Hole in the World", Charles Gunn sings "Three Little Maids from School are We," and when he is caught by Wesley, tries to cover by rapping, badly.

• The Chipmunks perform "Three Little Maids" in the episode "Maids in Japan" on Alvin and the Chipmunks. Alvin signs up himself and his brothers in a kabuki theater to gain publicity in Japan, but it goes terribly awry after they are to perform female roles (onnagata). After the show, Dave sees them in full costume and make-up and thinks they are some local girls.

• A Muppet Show episode featured Sam the Eagle singing "Willow, Tit-Willow".

I'm worried some of these may be repetative. I mean, there's an awful lot of straight-forward singing of Three little maids. Does this list need curtailed? Certainly, some of it should probably be in the article, but all of it? Don't know. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I don't think you should cut these out of the article. To the extent that they are repetitive, you could organize them around the songs they refer to, but I think you should put this section back in asap. Although you box idea looks nice, there is too much info, and it will be too long. So, sorry, I'd essentially go back to how it was, with just better organization of the references. Please don't leave it like this. -- Ssilvers 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, but better organised (Left a hidden note detailing orginisation). Deleted the Muppet Show one (only because of lack of detail.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to give it some clearer organizing principles. Put Muppet show back in with a cite tag, but what I really want is DATES for each reference.... Is there a "date needed" tag?

Image

An editor put in an image from an amateur production of Mikado. The G&S Project WP:G&S has not been referring to amateur productions in the G&S-related articles, since there are plenty of notable historical and professional productions. There are many public-domain images from early productions of Mikado that would be acceptable, or a more recent photo from, say, English National Opera's production or a Carl Rosa or NYGASP production would be OK if you can use it under "Fair Use". -- Ssilvers 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Spam filter

I tried to edit this page for some minor details, but when I tried to save the update I got blocked by a SPAM filter. What gives?

• me too! Tim riley 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

comic opera vs. operetta

The G&S Project (WP:G&S) uses the term "comic opera" instead of "operetta" to describe the G&S operas. Gilbert and Sullivan (and the other English authors and composers of the period) *always* referred to their works as comic operas, never as operettas, so as to distinguish them from Offenbach and other continental operettas. This is very consistent throughout all the articles in the project. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 15:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis

Great changes. I think you have improved the synopsis a good deal. A couple minor points: i) It is not stated that the "ruin" would affect only the officials. I think Gilbert means that *everyone* would be ruined, but I made the statement neutral; ii) Ko-Ko makes no attempt to change Nanki's mind. He just asks him if his mind could be changed by anything, but Nanki is "adamant"; iii) When the Mikado says "he goes by the name of Nanki Poo", only Ko-Ko responds at first. -- Ssilvers 18:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think whether the city was a village or not would affect the average person, but rather the people of status. Ko-Ko does ask him three questions to test his resolve, but obviously he is not trying to talk Nanki-Poo out of it. Pitti-Sing DEFINITELY knows Nanki-Poo's name, she uses it when the girls are chattering at Ko-Ko. But small points. The synopsis is much better than it used to be.--Wehwalt 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your change, but I just made it even clearer, OK? -- Ssilvers 20:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nanki-Poo is not his real name. The Mikado is stating the alias. Nanki-Poo would be ill advised to keep his real name, granted that he is "in hiding".--Wehwalt 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mikado "In Popular Culture"

An editor who should review WP:CIVIL keeps deleting the popular culture section, which contains lots of information about notable performances, like Allen Sherman's G&S parodies and illustrations of why "The Mikado" is one of the most important pieces of musical theatre in history. Perhaps a good compromise would be to split off the information into a separate article, per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Also, perhaps all the G&S in popular culture stuff could be combined in one article, with the big three each having a subheading and then an "other" heading for the other operas? -- Ssilvers 15:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not instead integrate the small amount of material that was in that section that was actually notable into the main article text, avoiding the 'bullet point' format that just encourages pointless listcruft? Do we really need an entire article made up of factoids like this:

• Rian Johnson's 2005 film Brick features a scene where Laura (Nora Zehetner), the femme fatale, performs a section from "The Sun Whose Rays" while playing the piano at a party. The performance is contained on track 3 of the soundtrack.

While this list of factoids might be true, they are only of tangential relevance to The Mikado. By listing every possible reference to a song from the opera in the article, we are doing our readers a grave disservice. Our job is to edit. Editing is just as much about excluding what doesn't belong as it is about including what does. Regards, Nandesuka 15:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

These "popular culture" lists exist for many articles. They demonstrate the extent of the article topic's influence on and relevance to modern culture. While each individual fact may well be trivial, the aggregate is not, since the total number of facts is related to the importance of the topic in the modern world. Hence it is worthwhile to keep even relatively trivial facts. We don't expect our readers to read every one. We do expect our readers to note that an article has a long (or short) list of them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not all references should be cataloged, per today's edit. However, I wonder if the trading cards edit should be preserved, either in that section or another. It seems different to me -- less trivial -- than the Seinfeld, et al. Also, if we DO leave out the trading cards text, I suppose the supporting reference should be removed as well ("52"). --DAW0001 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Baby talk?

Look, probably a couple of the names (Nanki-Poo and maybe Yum-Yum) are taken from baby talk. But Pish-Tush is a combination of two mild English imprecations, Peep-Bo is drawn from Little Bo Peep. I believe (I'll have to look for the quote) that Pooh-Bah is drawn from the practice of company directors sit on each others' boards, to which your only reaction can be "bah" or some such. As for Katisha, I gather that is supposed to be baby talk for cat, but she is described as long nailed (i.e. claws)? I'm not sure where that is coming from, her hands are one of the few body parts she has which are NOT described in the second act! But we are making sweeping statements here that really aren't been borne out by the sources or common sense.--Wehwalt 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Pooh-Bah, like Pish-Tush, are both combinations of dismissive exclamations. Pooh! Bah! Pish! Tush! Still, they can be childish exclamations. I've tried to refine it. But in any case, lots of editors have contributed to this section, and I wouldn't just cut it. It makes a very important point, that the names are not Japanese. -- Ssilvers 17:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't proposing to cut it. Your improvements are a great help. I will look for that quote by Gilbert, it might be worth including. I think that the Katisha reference may escape the reader, I tried to make it a little more clear. I'm not even sure that to be catty meant to Gilbert what it means to us.--Wehwalt 01:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Bellini's "cat" duet? Women competing for a man, I think, had been compared to cats for some time before G&S. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 01:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. And, "go to" is another dismissive exclamation. I guess all the high officials and lords of Titipu have names which are English dismissive exclamations. I'll check my references on the Gilbert quote on Pooh-Bah.--Wehwalt 02:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Asimov pointed out in his annotations that "Katisha" is the sound of a sneeze, which would link her nicely to Nanki-Poo. I'm not saying he's divined the one true interpretation Gilbert had in mind; but linking "Katisha" to "catty" seems like even more of a stretch to me. "Pooh-Bah" and "Pish-Tush" are obviously dismissive exclamations, as Ssilvers writes. "Peep-Bo" is indeed baby-talk. --Quuxplusone 05:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Asimov's conclusion is pure speculation, like many of his interpretations in his beautifully bound paperweight (and he was a friend of mine). I can't find any articles discussing the meaning of Katisha, so I'll remove it from the article, even though I think it must have something to do with a cat. If anyone finds a reference.... -- Ssilvers 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mikado Project

An editor has included, in the popular culture section, an entry about a new play (neither the play nor the authors have articles about them, and there is no source given) called "The Mikado Project" about a revisionist version of the play being performed to overcome what they see as "racism" in the original. I don't take any position on their attitude on racism; everyone's entitled to their opinion. I assume that this can be verified; there must be reviews of the play. I'm more worried about whether this is notable enough to keep. --Wehwalt 00:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is probably not notable, but a lot of the cultural reference trivia is probably non-notable. At some point, I'll go through it and weed out a lot of fluff, but I don't think it's an emergency. In the meantime, I de-redlinked it and slimmed it down a bit. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

City to village

Concerning the above sentence "I don't think whether the city was a village or not would affect the average person, but rather the people of status." It seems to me that turning the city into a village is a euphemism for killing most of the population so that a city with, say, 100,000 people is reduced to a village of 100 people by killing the other 99,900. That would certainly fit in with all the other death-euphemisms in the script. The average person would definitely be affected; he'd be dead. CharlesTheBold 05:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree (though this really should all be about discussing improvements to the page). Your theory would not fit with the genial tone of the play. In England, cities have privileges, and officials, which smaller entities lack. None of Pooh-Bah's capacities would be needed in a village, for example, and ordinances and bylaws would be imposed from some greater regional authority. I think this is how the Mikado's threat would be understood by Savoy audiences: the officials and high ranking persons would lose great status to outsiders.--Wehwalt 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt. Gilbert was rarely coy about his meanings. If he wanted to say that people would be killed, he would have said so. Gilbert was interested in the follies of laws and bureaucracy. He is making fun of the fact that a bureaucratic classification of the city as a village could be considered a serious problem by these town officials. -- Ssilvers 13:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Never named characters

Is it worth adding a mention that Peep-Bo and Pish-Tush's names are never spoken or sung? (This is what actually brought me to this article today--I was struggling to remember Peep-Bo's name!) Not R 13:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistent with the note about Go-To, I added notes to this effect. Not R 19:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right thing to do. There are many G&S characters whose given names are never specifically mentioned (or mentioned only in stage directions). I would say that this is not helpful information. -- Ssilvers 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Principal characters with solo numbers and extensive dialogue, as opposed to named chorus roles with brief solo parts? Even Ruth and Zorah in Ruddigore are mentioned by name (well, Zorah was before the original finale was cut). I think it's pretty important to be aware that your audience won't know the names of two of your main characters because they've never heard them. Not R 23:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ruth's name is *not* mentioned in Ruddigore. Do we even know Pitti-sing's name from the libretto? The Pirate King's name (Richard) is not mentioned; nor are Samuel, Edith, Kate and Isabel's. Mrs. Cripps is referred to only as Little Buttercup. Cousin Hebe, Boatswain, and Carpenters' names are not mentioned in Pinafore. But the question is, why would an encyclopedia reader care whether the audience knows Pish-Tush's name? It will be obvious whe he is from the program, if they care. I'm not convinced yet.

I would say that Pish-Tush is probably the most prominent character in the canon to never be identified in any way. That being said, I don't think that fact is encyclopedic. It seems trivial to me. Go-To is a special case, because of his addition to the opera to basically sing one line.--Wehwalt 02:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right, a Ruth is mentioned, but there's nothing to suggest it is or is not the same Ruth (we just joked about her false teeth). But yes, Pitti-Sing is named prominently at the end of the opera when Katisha cries, "Mercy!" The Pirate King, Buttercup, and the Boatswain are red herrings--the characters are identified that way both in the dramatis personae and on stage. Samuel is the only one of the rest nearly as prominent as Peep-Bo.

Why does the general reader care? So he doesn't think he's been fed bogus information or misremembered important characters' names when he talks to someone who's seen the show and doesn't recognize them. I think it's particularly notable in Mikado where there are no minor named roles that come out of the chorus, just the one line of recitative from "a noble." Not R 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't get very excited about this, so I'll leave it; but if Wehwalt or anyone else decides to delete the refs, I'd support that. -- Ssilvers 05:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I've added a picture of the Mikado and put it at the top, supplanting the three little maids who were in possession (and who pop up elsewhere in Wikipedia). Hope this is all right. Tim Riley 12:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we can use both iconic photos and put TLM lower down. -- Ssilvers 17:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Partial censorship in article.

Hey all, just got a message from Snowolf regarding my edits to the Mikado page, specifically, my un-censoring of "n....." as it appeared in the article.

First of all, he suggested that the edit was "unconstructive", and implied that I hadn't read "introduction to editing".

I believe that it is constructive, and the "introduction to editing" section contains the statement "Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting," .. and I believe I did just that, by improving the formatting.

I don't think any "word censorship" is appropriate at all in an encyclopedic article, so I considered the elimination of said censorship an improvement in content. Censoring it would be bad enough, but not censoring it in the first half of the paragraph and censoring it in the second half of the paragraph makes it look even worse, so I considered the elimination of said censorship to also be an improvement in formatting.

In other words, I think it is the partial censorship that is "unconstructive".

So, is there any reason why we are half-censoring that paragraph? I mean, we're talking about something as fundamental as honestly quoting an author, not "some troublemaker exploiting a loophole letting him type the 'N-Word' over and over." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.66.165 (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just re-read the n-word reference that I remember. I don't know at what level of "censorship" it is, but it seems okay to me. The use of the word is objectively explained and the reasons for its use and sometimes change in performances. We aren't using the word here. Is it okay to discuss outright if we don't use the actual word? Student7 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The word in question is used twice in the lead section of the paragraph so it should be used in the entire paragraph. Below is what wikipedia policy has to say on the matter. Going by that the word in question should be used in full in the entire article.

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, or content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy can be removed, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

Leaderofearth (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection 24.77.66.165's edit was reverted becaused it appeared to be vandalism to the user who reverted it. They did not look at the context of the article before reverting. Leaderofearth (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I shall happily consider myself vindicated, even though a user who accused me of not boning up on Wikipedia's policies is apparently the one who didn't do his/her homework.24.77.66.165 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the use of the N-word over and over again is unnecessary. Once we establish what the word is, why not reduce the number of instances of the offensive word? -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the use of the word twice and the use of "n....." twice makes Wikipedia look sloppy, and more concerned about cowtowing to political correctness than being an accurate encyclopedia? There is no extraneous use of the offensive word in the paragraph. Paraphrasing Freud, sometimes a word is just a word.24.77.66.165 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only used 3 times (maybe four) all as they are used in the operetta. I do not think that the use is over the top and is appropriate in the context of the article. Leaderofearth (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you can reconstruct the article without sounding funny. I suspect it's sequential and logical. We can't say "the offensive word was replaced by" - too long and awkward, I think. And some non-English readers may lose the sense of what we are referring to, however obvious it is to us.Student7 (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that using "n..." in place of the word "nigger" is idiotic. We have already used the word once (in accordance with Wikipedia policy, as quoted above), so clearly we have established that the word can be used. Since we are quoting the actual original lyrics, I don't see the problem -- yeah, some people are undoubtedly going to get offended, but it's blindingly obvious that this section of the article is a discussion of the racism in the opera, not an expression of racism in the article. We are tasked with disseminating information and educating people, not short-changing them just because some of them can't tell the difference between discussing things and doing things. Abbreviating it certainly doesn't lend any clarity to the article. Accordingly, I'm making the change.

(Furthermore, I have to say that attempts to mask words like this smacks of intellectual dishonesty. Everyone who's going to be offended knows what the word in question is. Why is that supposed to be less offensive than actually typing it out? It's not uncommon to see people on the internet say things like "f*** you", and apparently there's a deeply rooted belief that this somehow makes it more acceptable -- as if the underlying message was any different. It's like being told to go fuck yourself by a guy who mumbles his words, so you can't quite make out the actual syllables. Are you really going to take a kinder view towards him just because his enunciation leaves something to be desired?) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we insane? WP does not censor. This article is about a literary work. The author used the word in good faith, without intent to offend. Mentioning the change to the libretto is relevant to the article. We should put the word, in full, as necessary. Period. Those who are offended should stick to carefully screened materials, and avoid the internet entirely!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a duty to explain the controversy in full, and that requires using the word. That said, the suggestion that we avoid using the word subsequently when it can be avoided is a fine one. That's not "censorship" -- that's editing. Nandesuka (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As the section requires an explanation of what became of each of the uses of the word in The Mikado, we can hardly do that without quoting or referring to the libretto, requiring the use of the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Political correctness" is a cynical, ideological word, not an encyclopedic one.

The use of "political correctness" needs to be changed to something more neutral. "political correctness" has been the bailiwick of conservatives. E.g. if someone says we ought to say humankind not mankind, a conservative cries 'political correctness.' I.e. it's an ideologically loaded term--the people who are accused of political correctness are portrayed as petty, narrow-minded, etc. For the section in question, "political critique" would be a more neutral term. I.e. the Mikado has critics who find it offensive politically. Furthermore, I reckon not a single critic has called the Mikado "politically incorrect." Not one. Rather, they have probably used terms like "racist," "orientalist," and so forth. The change to "political critique" makes the article more encyclopedic and accurate and less politically loaded. Smilo Don (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "political critique" is a useful term here. I also don't agree with your premise - I don't think the term "policial correctness" has any agenda in this context. I know that the the contributors to this article mostly write about entertainments written in the 19th century - we're merely trying to describe the various criticisms that have been levelled at the opera from time to time. It is true, however that terms like racist or orientalist have been used. But you are wrong: It is easy to find references to The Mikado as being politically incorrect (or NOT politically incorrect). See, e.g., this review and this and this and this. However, I would be willing to say something like "racisim and sexism". If you feel strongly, make a few suggestions here, and perhaps we can arrive at a compromise. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

with all due respect, the links you cite aren't accusing the mikado of political incorrectness. they are using the phrase quite differently. Has any serious critique (i.e. not some blog) ever called the play politically incorrect? I doubt it. It's not a term that critics use! it had was a flash-in-the-pan thing on college campuses in the late 80s (i was there), and then conservatives jumped all over it. today it works as a straw man to swat away people who accuse a text of being sexist or racist or something. --Smilo Don (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ssilvers. The term seems appropriate in the context, does not seem denigrating to the critics, and I don't see the problem, frankly. But if you have phrasing, Smilo, that you want to propose, well, that is what talk pages are for, in part.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I just don't think political correctness is accurate or fair or encyclopedic. It lacks a citation--who, exactly, has called the mikado politically incorrect? But it's also a cheap shot at people who might rightly point out that there's a problematic representation of Japan and oriental women in the play. aS Ssilver's link to the harvard crimson shows, you can just embrace it anyway. That's what most of us do, whether its the Rolling stones or shakespeare. but it's still worth a political critique. I don't know the best WP term here. I thought political critique was fairly neutral and descriptive. cheers, --Smilo Don (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is an appropriate characterization. And of course, the opera says nothing negative about the Japanese, Gilbert's target, which is well struck, is the British.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[Left] I have to agree with Smilo Don. "Political correctness" is a very controversial phrase--controversial enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page. I can understand why it would bother some people while others wouldn't bat an eye. The meaning and intent behind the phrase can be different depending on the person using or reading it, and because of this it's not appropriate for a politically neutral article. But instead of finding a substitute how about shortening the title from "Controversy and political correctness" to just "Controversy"?--Cordonnier (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My view is that where a phrase is contested - without attribution - then probably we should look to rephrase it. Historically, 'the list' has always been rewritten to reflect the principle 'hates' of the time. Today, a British production would probably include bankers and politicians on the take. I'm not sure that it reflects any kind of controversy - the libretto and content reflected the mores of the period and were probably knocked off in less time than has already been spent discussing the matter! As Wehwait notes it is a satire on British society, and only set in Japan to jump on a bandwagon of interest in the country.

The section should be rewritten to either reflect a controversy (if one existed - or, exists for modern audiences); or to put the period in context in a purely neutral fashion. The section does need a stronger direction (narrative?), and to put the issues in a more concise fashion. To be honest - it's not that far off. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The heading of the section is a minor matter; the real problem is that the section is disorganized, and that its placement in the article is not balanced: This is an article about a venerable piece of light entertainment, not guerrilla theatre, so the "controversy", if there ever was one (note the lack of references stating that there is really a controversy) is overblown as written here. I propose to the section into a lower "Reception" section and to reorganize the material more sensibly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable proposition. Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[Out] Looking better. I think "Not actually a Japanese Opera" remains a clunky section heading. I think the simple "Context" might work better, as the section makes clear it is a satire on British sensibilities. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ssilvers' proposal is, as always with him, reasonable. Suggest he make it so.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wehwalt. The revision is done. Please see below re: article progress. Kb, I agree, but I think "context" is too vague, so I changed it to "Japanese setting". Works? -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me - and less clunky! Kbthompson (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Future FA push

Just a reminder: we have a little over a year to get this to FA status if we're going to have it on the mainpage for its 125th anniversary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help, both at the FA push and at TFA/R.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Wehwalt. How would you like to take a crack at building a critical reception section? You could start here: http://savoyoperas.org.uk/mikado/ All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes

The footnote n.29 is lacking of the complete reference:

W.S. Gilbert: His Life and Letters, by Sidney Dark and Rowland Grey (London: Methuen and Co., 1924). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.174.58 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Analysis and Criticism

Started this section. It's obviously a bit light at present, but it's something to build on. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Brent-Walker Version

Describing the Brent-Walker version as "probably one of the worst in the series" is hardly NPOV. Do we have a citation? Rob Burbidge (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of British Politics

Earlier in the article it mentions this is supposed to be some sort of criticism of British Politics, but I see no mention in the article what the allegory is or whatever 207.196.183.81 (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The show is a satire of the British bureaucracy and aristocracy. BTW, see WP:WHY. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

German/European productions

Tim wrote: According to the English critic Sir Neville Cardus, Artur Nikisch had conducted The Mikado (The Manchester Guardian, 19 April 1933, p. 11). Bruno Walter wrote that he was selected to conduct The Mikado at the Kroll-Oper in Berlin only "after I had demonstrated my 'light touch' in operas such as Auber's Fra Diavolo, Lortzing's Czar and Carpenter and also in Mozart's works". (http://www.sullivan-forschung.de/stage.htm) From Rollins and Witts: In 1886/7 D'Oyly Carte’s "G" Company toured Germany and Austria from June to January, playing Pinafore and Mikado. In November 1887 they toured there again, adding Patience to their repertory. From Arthur Jacobs's Sullivan biography: Some of the D'Oyly Carte’s Berlin appearances were at the Kroll, later the domain of the young Otto Klemperer. There were also performances in Hamburg, Leipzig, Dresden, Breslau, Vienna, Stuttgart, Munich, Strassburg (sic) and elsewhere. As the Kaiser was a great fan, Sullivan himself conducted The Mikado at "the Royal Opera", which I take to mean Charlottenburg rather than the Linden Oper. Wagner and Bruckner's enemy the critic Eduard Hanslick, commented rather perceptively: "…the success of The Mikado depends neither on the libretto nor the music alone, nor indeed on the combination of the two: the quite original—of its kind unique—presentation by the English performers must be taken into account." Rollins and Witts again: In August 1887 the D'OC "E" Company took in Calais and Boulogne in between Dover and Folkestone, playing Mikado (in English, naturally). Jacobs: "Negotiations for a production of The Mikado in Paris, in French translation, fell through because the French impresario wanted an adaptation rather than a translation, and Gilbert wasn't having any of it. [The piece was not professionally produced in Paris until the 1960s] The Mikado flopped in Brussels, despite a French translation. In Holland and Hungary G&S were hugely popular. A Pannifor kapitánya was the first of several of the operas to be a hit in Budapest. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Miya-sama

In Japanese this song is also known as Ton-yare Bushi and is musically different from Sullivan's version, although not much. To hear it, visit this excellent webpage. The first verse is transliterated into Romanji. Unfortunately the other verses aren't, although they do appear to be written in Japanese characters and a translation is given for them. The page also gives some good historical background to the song. This webpage gives a little more info on the pronunciation of the other verses but not their meaning.-- Derek Ross | Talk 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I made a revision to the text of the article and added a footnote about "Ton-yare Bushi", citing http://www.geocities.jp/general_sasaki/historia-miyasan-eng.html . I did not cite the blog, though. I listened to the midi files. I had a Japanese friend who had sung the song to me years ago, and I agree with the blog writer that the song, as sung, is very "jaunty" and syncopated - moreso than the midi files in the history article would indicate. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

External link

I have removed a link to what seems to be a commercial catalogue for unauthorised recordings. If the contributor (81.251.187.30) believes the link conforms to WP requirements (see, for instance, WP:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING) he/she may wish to discuss here. Any other editor's thoughts on this would be gratefully received. - Tim riley (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the link can't be used here. See WP:EL. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ruhleben POW production

I was responsible for adding a sentence at the end of the penultimate paragraph of the Productions section about a highly unusual production put on in Ruhleben Prisoner of War Camp by a group of musical prisoners under challenging circumstances. I was aware that this event might not be considered relevant by everyone. Nonetheless, I believe it is indeed pertinent. The production has become rather well known and is documented by its director, the conductor Ernest MacMillan, in a talk given to the Toronto G&S Society in 1966. The story of the production is most unusual, involving as it did a small group of well-known musicians who, in adverse circumstances, were able to piece together a working arrangement of the score of the complete work entirely from memory (a feat which may be seen as testifying to the contemporary standing of The Mikado). According to MacMillan, "the producer was a professional, and the cast was quite good". The audience included the US ambassador to Germany at the time, James W. Gerard. I believe that this decidedly off-beat unauthorized production is notable and of genuine encyclopaedic interest—it has already been independently cited by other hands in the WP articles on both Ruhleben and MacMillan—and could be of genuine interest to some readers of the Mikado page. If nothing else, I feel it illustrates the point implicitly made in the preceding sentence that, even then, The Mikado was not all London Savoy. And the story of the production certainly isn't trivial. Therefore, I'm afraid I cannot agree with Ssilvers's legitimate contention that "This reading at a POW camp is not of encyclopedic interest" (I guess it's a matter of perspective). Consequently, for the time being at least, I have undone his esteemed 'undo'. Rather than get into an editorial conflict on this disagreement, could we perhaps open the floor to other opinions to help reach some sort of consensus? :) MistyMorn (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ssilvers. It's interesting, but it is not that important to the history of The Mikado. Is there some other article that the information can find a place in? Perhaps MacMillan's? I would not want to see the information lost to Wikipedia, but I think that this is not the place for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there have been probably ten thousand productions of The Mikado. The opera has been the most popular single piece of musical theatre in the world since 1885. It is still produced dozens of times each year worldwide (and that doesn't count concert productions!). I would not be surprised to be told that there were a dozen or maybe even 100 readings of The Mikado in POW camps during WWI and WWII. The information would be notable, perhaps, in an article about that POW camp, or, as Wehwalt says, MacMillan's, or perhaps elsewhere, but I'm afraid that in the Mikado article it is just crowded out by the many, many interesting, special, unusual productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Wehwalt and Ssilvers. Context is crucial, and this information is doubtless suitable for an article about the prison camp or Sir Ernest, but in relation to The Mikado it is not notable, in my opinion. Tim riley (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Timriley above - this article is not the place for the addition. Perhaps another better related article such as that about the POW camp would be more relevant. Jack1956 (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks guys, I concede. MistyMorn (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you'll doubtless be glad to know that I've now cowered off into this new para to lick my wounds... And of course I fully accept the reviewers' decision as final. But in the face of expert opinion, I generally find it hard to resist a quick rebuttal (oof, ouch!), just for a bit of fun. So here goes.... First I wouldn't altogether rule out the relevance of a POW Camp as a significant venue (even for a premiere). While fully acknowledging the point about the extreme popularity of The Mikado, and recognising that there has been at least one other documented POW production [scroll down here] and no doubt several more (though presumably not in Japan!), consulting Google and GoogleScholar suggests to me that the Ruhleben one is particularly notable. I also of course fully accept the importance of "context" and recognise that your perspectives may be more valid than mine; I perhaps would prefer to provide readers of the Mikado page with a somewhat wider context (especially given that Ruhleben or MacMillan would not be likely next wiki-stops). I would argue that a culturally significant event like this should not be "crowded out" by the many productions in more conventional settings. I think Tim Ashley's words in the Guardian article cited above might perhaps also be applied in a different context to the significance of the Ruhleben experience, as recounted by MacMillan: "The event's force lay in its broadening of our contextual awareness, and in its revelation of the quality of the work produced." For the record, I'd also considered placing the information in the Adaptations section, given the adaptations to a particular environment—use of an all male cast, together with ad hoc orchestral arrangements reconstructed from memory—and the inclusion of some topical variations to the text. However, I'm not altogether sure whether the Ruhleben production can truly be considered "popular culture". So I rest my kit bag. And promise to try to get the hell out of here! Ciao ciao MistyMorn (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of an all male cast is hardly unusual for G&S; school productions in the UK are an obvious example. I'm sure there are others. We get it, you think much of this. We're not discouraging you, we are just trying to keep the focus of this article on the most influential productions. I would hesitate to call us experts, though perhaps SSilvers, is. I'm a lay person with an interest in G&S (for the record, I'm also a huge fan of The Used). But the people who replied to you are experienced in the ways of the Wiki and have a good sense for what should be in a top level article. Have you considered developing this into its own article? Very likely a "See also" from this article would be justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there could be an article about entertainments by prisoners at POW camps. What we ought to do, I think, is add a sentence in the Productions section that says something about subsequent productions being given by numerous amateur and school groups (and linking or footnoting other extremely significant productions, and "even in POW camps" linking the new article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the feedback and ideas. This is the first time I've found myself getting into any sort of genuine editorial dispute on WP, and I'm finding the experience quite educational. To answer your points: Yes, Wehwalt, I did think quite a bit about the issue, as my background encourages me to. But I'm not at all sure I'm right, since I'm evidently biased by my own psychological investment in work on a composer called Benjamin Dale who was also involved in the Ruhleben production. I do respect the in-depth knowledge of WP that you and the other contributors have. At the same time, I think it's a good thing generally to be wary of "group think" and challenge received opinion when one feels there's an alternative case to be argued. I think the idea of a WP page on prison/POW camp theatrical productions is a very interesting one. Personally, I don't much feel like taking two steps forward to volunteer to research it though. I also like Ssilvers's idea of a section acknowledging different kinds of productions, such as schools etc. What prompted me to insert the Ruhleben sentence in the first place was that it was information which I felt I would have found interesting myself (though I have no pretence to be especially representative of other WP users). Thank you again. MistyMorn (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant by "think much of". I meant, value highly. You may be slightly disgruntled, but I think editors here really tried to help you out and give you the benefit of their experience.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Er, sorry, Wehwalt. I've obviously given the wrong impression. I didn't mean to appear disgruntled: I was just trying to explain where I was coming from. My thanks were sincere. You guys have patiently given your valuable time to discuss a point I chose to defend rather tenaciously. I appreciate that. And I appreciate the entire discussion, which I've found genuinely thought provoking. I'd like to add that I found it particularly refreshing to find myself taking part in a dispute where a minority voice (in this case, mine) was listened to and respected, rather than just being trashed as so often seems to occur in internet discussions. Thank you! --MistyMorn (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I said "may be". I'm glad you feel that way.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Phonoscènes of The Mikado

Hello, please have a look on the article Phonoscène. It mentions source about Sound-on-disc films of The Mikado shown to the royal family on april 1907.--Gozor136 (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I saw and revised that article. I do not think that the showing of the Phonoscène that included one song each from The Mikado and Pinafore was significant with respect to the operas' articles. The Phonoscène was simply a recording of pieces from the show that was being produced at the Hippodrome at the time. Do others disagree? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I have found 3 images of phonoscènes of The Mikado in the Gaumont catalogue published in january 1908:

I dated them "1907" but they may have been produced in 1906. These were lip-synching artifacts synchronized with a 1906/1907 disc recording. It seems that the phonoscènes where firstly showed at the Hyppodrome, then at The Buckingham Palace.

(Daily Telegraph, London 5 April 1907, quotation: An afternoon entertainment of "Singing Pictures" at Buckingham Palace afforded much enjoyment. The Queen's command was received at the Hippodrome yesterday morning, instructing a private exhibition ... to be given in the Palace, commencing at three o'clock. ...[T]he instrument, placed in the [throne room], cast the pictures through the folding-doors [into the Green Drawing Room] upon a screen hung behind a bank of palms.)

Best regards--Gozor136 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd feel better about these if they can be found to be free use. Do we know who took the images? If they died before 1942, you should be OK (in a few hours).--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Gaumont died in 1946, but wasn't the standard life plus 50 years in those days? If that's right, then these became free in 1996. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not certain, suggest try WP:MCQ--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The images where commercial material when they were edited on january 1908. The aim was to promote phonoscènes so cinema owners whould buy them, along with a Chronophone. One could not rent a phonoscène. I personally made the scans. I am not familliar with the do's and dont about "free use". But one can find a january 1908 Gaumont catalogue randomly in second-hand book shop... --Gozor136 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Worst-ever recording

This is one of those tid-bits that don't really belong into the article, but interested readers might find a review of the worst-ever recording of The Mikado – an English-German coproduction with the participation of Martyn Green from the early 50s – quite entertaining: http://gasdisc.oakapplepress.com/mikroyale.htm . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a copy of that LP. It has its moments, but wouldn't be my Desert Island choice. And the LP of ENO's buttock-clenchingly bad second attempt at The Mikado is much worse. Tim riley (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir Arthur

An editor has changed "Arthur Sullivan" to "Sir Arthur Sulilvan" in the lead section. I think this is wrong. Sullivan's practice (and, mutatis mutandis, that of Parry, Elgar, Walton, Tippett, Maxwell Davies et al) was that as composer he was plain "Arthur Sullivan", but "Sir Arthur Sullivan" as a conductor, public figure and anything else. See the title pages of G&S vocal scores - from the first edition to the present day they are ascribed to W S Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan. Savoy programmes ditto.

On the grounds that we should call people what they themselves want to be called I think we should not use the "Sir" when referring to him in his capacity as composer, and I have reverted the change accordingly. Comments pro or con invited. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Sullivan's biographer Jacobs confirms that Sullivan did not use the "Sir" in connection with his compositions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

References to songs in The Mikado

I have removed two YouTube references per WP:YT. Was the uninformative Alvin and the Chipmunks and Simpsons info already there (I suspect not) or can this also be removed. I think this is unimportant and does not benefit that section in the least. Any thoughts? -- Cassianto (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean Alvin and Dinah Shore. I think we need both of these brief references, as these are iconic TV performances of "Three Little Maids". In any case, so is the performance of the song on The Simpsons, I think, and it is properly referenced by a reliable source. I have sent you an e-mail. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

e-mail received and new reference found. See if you agree. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pish-Tush

Much is made in the article of the use of "pooh-bah" in modern english, but what about "pish-tosh" and "pish-posh"? Don't these come directly from Pish-Tush? 66.105.218.14 (talk) 04:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a WP:Reliable source discussing this, it could be added. See also WP:V for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just an aesthetic opinion

This article, like most of the G&S coverage on WP, is excellent. Bravos all round, and hearty thanks to the contributors.

Looking at the page from a designer's eye, though, I can't help thinking that the Hassal poster (currently shown in the "Origins of the Work" section) would be a more effective topmost picture than the current choice, a Chappell vocal score cover. The score cover is pleasant enough and is a larger-resolution scan, but the J. Hassal poster seems more visually interesting and is certainly much more iconic, more frequently reproduced, and more evocative of the original production. I'd humbly suggest switching the two images.--Lemuellio (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree! -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. Let's do it! Jack1956 (talk) 07:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It looks fresher this way. Thanks to Lemuello for the suggestion and to Jack for doing it. Tim riley (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ruhleben POW production revisited

Gala performance of The Mikado at the Theatre of the British Civilian POW Camp, Ruhleben, Germany

The June 2014 issue of BBC Music Magazine contains an article by the broadcaster and writer Andrew Green entitled "Captured moments", which begins,

"Just another performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado? Nico Jungman's evocative 1916 painting (right) shows appropriate oriental lanterns draped around the rafters, illuminating the scene as a conductor urges on his players, watched by rows of attentive listeners stretching into the distance. However, this was no more ordinary a musical performance than the hundreds of others which took place at the Ruhleben internment camp near Berlin during the First World War. For one thing, this Mikado was only possible because musicians at the camp were able to reconstruct the score from memory."

This consideration prompts me to resubmit an edit proposed a few years ago, which at the time was not accepted for publication.

Best wishes, 86.161.251.135 (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think that the production is very notable in the context of the tens of thousands of productions of The Mikado through the last 130 years. But, at least temporarily, and if the mention is kept brief enough, I don't object to putting in a sentence with the image. I've done so. But, when we move this article to GA or FA, we'll have to re-evaluate whether it is helpful to readers for us to mention this one production so prominently while not mentioning the many, many very significant historical productions of this opera. Note, btw, that there is a longer write-up in the Ruhleben internment camp article, where it is, IMO, more appropriate. It also is appropriate to discuss in Ernest MacMillan's article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose it's a question of perspective. Personally, I believe that this was indeed not "Just another performance of Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado" (though without being able to cite a reliable source focused on the work itself, I'm probably not on strong ground here). Of course you're quite right about the relevance to the other pages you mention. 86.161.251.135 (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Without the image, I find the information about this production to be of far less interest, so I moved most of it to the footnote, and instead put in far more important information about amateur productions in general. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The n-word

We already state in the article that the n-word is changed in modern performances. We do not need a lengthy description of both instances of the word in the libretto. It's incidental to the show. Indeed, one could argue that it is hardly worth a footnote in the article, and yet we mention it twice. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Worth one mention, probably, to cover both incidences of "nigger" but that suffices. Tim riley talk 23:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, have cut it down to one reference and noted that the offensive words are generally changed in modern productions. Note that, in his Treasury, Martyn Green says that Rupert D'Oyly Carte hired A. P. Herbert to write the lyric changes after Americans expressed objections to the word during the 1947 tour. Bradley says so too. Bradley notes that in 1948, Rupert wrote to the press that he would make the changes also in UK productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this section describes two different cases, which would be better separated.

• There's the two occurrences of "nigger", replaced in 1948. The published libretto and vocal score were correspondingly updated. As the opera was still in copyright, those changes were effectively mandatory at that time, and have been retained universally ever since. I think that as a matter of history both uses should be mentioned.
• Whereas some may have a problem with the lady novelist or the one who dresses like a guy, these remain unchanged in the published text, and are replaced only sporadically, if at all.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, SamuelTheGhost. I agree with the first three sentences of your first bullet point and would not object to a brief footnote citing the exact page number in Bradley or another WP:RS (I don't have Bradley in front of me). As to your second bullet point, I agree with the cited source that it is often replaced. In any case, I'm not sure what change you're suggesting. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

To clarify what I'm suggesting:

• The second paragraph, about rewritings of the "little list", is fine and needs no change
• The first paragraph could perhaps begin with the comments made after the 1947 tour, as described by Ssilvers above, with mention of both occurrences of "nigger" and what they were replaced with. The bit about "white entertainers in makeup, not to dark skinned people" is, however, unconvincing and poorly sourced for what it says, and would be better just omitted.
• The rest of the first paragraph could be dropped. If retained it needs to be in a new paragraph and the "lampooned by George Eliot" bit needs expansion (I don't know what it's on about, and the ref seems to be a dead link). SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The most recent addition is, I am sure, well-intentioned, but not, I think, the best approach, because it includes too much reference to other issues, specifically the Scudamore case. Sane people recognise that a word can only be offensive if intended to be so (that's part of my criteria of sanity). Gilbert's words are full of general mocking misanthropy, but not intended to be vicious or really hurtful (except perhaps to people who have flabby hands and irritating laughs). We should be asssuming that our readers are sane and have a sense of proportion, even though there are too many examples in public life of those who aren't and haven't. If we want to go into explanations, relating what Rupert D'Oyly Carte wrote to the press in 1948 is the best route. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the dead link, which I have now fixed, but the reference given regarding the use of the word "nigger" in earlier times in England seems right on point to me, or I would not have added it. I disagree with you that the word "can only be offensive if intended to be so". In the US, at least, it is per se offensive, and so I think the ref is necessary. If you have a better source to explain that the word was not offensive in England prior to WWII, let me know, and I'll be happy to substitute it. I have added information about the 1948 changes to satisfy your comment above. As for the reference to blackface minstrelsy, it is an important fact about the meaning of Gilbert's phrase. See Gilbert's 1897 illustration of a banjo serenader (from an edition of his Bab Ballads), which illustrates the fact that British Victorians' understanding of the word "nigger" related to blackface minstrelsy, which was highly popular in England). If you can offer reliable sources to update links in this article, that would be very helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a few remarks as I'm running out of motivation on this one:

• There are loads of examples of uses of "nigger" in the article of that name. Of course we now avoid using the word gratuitously in new utterances, because we know that it has offensive overtones; the issue is only our appraisal of historic uses. The article The Sun has got his Hat on is good here. My only reservation about your Pullum reference was that it dragged Scudamore in.
• I've studied Gilbert's illustration of the minstrel, which also appears in my own copy of the Bab Ballads. I think it's ambiguous as to whether it shows a black person or a white in blackface. More to the point, I don't think it matters. Gilbert did not have today's sensibility on the subject, and the phrase in the article "who were white entertainers in makeup, not to dark skinned people" comes across as trying too hard. Qui s'excuse s'accuse.
• I'd still prefer to see the lady who is "blacked like a nigger with permanent walnut juice" included, but I hope without any explanation that it somehow doesn't mean what it says.
• The uses of "nigger" are indeed "references that have become offensive over time", but I know of no evidence that the lady novelist or the one who dresses like a guy are in the same category. They're a quite dofferent case and belong in a separate paragraph. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you have a better ref, I'm happy to use it instead of the one you don't like. Second, the Gilbert drawing illustrates a Bab Ballad about a "doggerel bard" who is undoubtedly a white person and, btw, in Victorian England, the minstrel performers were generally white. Third, "blacked like a nigger" again means blackened like a blackface performer. Fourth, as the refs show, the language was seen as sexist, and I disagree that language that can be misinterpreted as racist and sexist are not in the same category and should not be described in the same paragraph. Also, the MOS (and good writing) discourages stubby little paragraphs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ladies in the list song

I've been familiar with The Mikado for several decades, as audience, as singer/actor and as director. In that time I've never encountered anyone who had a problem with the lady novelist or the one who dresses like a guy. They are dated, but not seen as offensive. The criticism I have often heard of Gilbert's sexism is his portrayal of desperate older women such as Katisha. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:OR (or anyone's) is not admissible in the court of Wikipedia; Wikipedia runs on research in published sources. If you can't point to reliable sources that rebut the ones given in the article, then your assertion is, much like Nanki-Poo's execution or the Tom-Tit's suicide, an affecting tale, but merely corroborative fiddlestick. BTW, I have also been performing G&S since 1979, including Ko-Ko in both professional and amateur companies, and I have encountered it and have changed the lines in the list song when directors felt it ought to be changed. Moreover, I have created, or been a major contributor to, more than 500 G&S-related articles on Wikipedia, including helping to bring to Featured Article-class articles on H.M.S. Pinafore, Trial by Jury and Thespis, as well as helping to promote quite a few other G&S-related articles to GA-class, so, I have spent a lot (I mean A LOT) of time adding research about G&S to Wikipedia. Would you like to help us to research articles here, or do you just want to argue about one sentence in one article where your personal experience does not agree with the sources we cite with respect to that sentence? Because it would be pretty unproductive to keep doing that. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I can see no point in attempting to contribute to an article with such an aggressive owner. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that is rather uncalled for. I have always found Ssilvers to be an exemplary editor, balanced and fair in his editing and incredibly and painstakingly accurate in his research and writing. It is rather unfair to say he feels that he "owns" any article - if something is wrong or inaccurate he will say so as, like the rest of us who work on here, he wants the best for the readers. Jack1956 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops! a minor curiosity

I note that while Gilbert assumed that the sun was masculine and the moon feminine in "The sun whose rays", Yum-yum should have assumed the opposite since in Japan the Sun is female and the Moon is male. Not worth mentioning in the article of course but I couldn't let it pass completely unremarked. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course, Yum-Yum is not a character in a Japanese play; she is a character in a play satirizing British ideas and institutions that is nominally set in Japan to give the playwright extra latitude in pointing his satire, without running afoul of the Lord Chamberlain, while providing a colourful background. I doubt that Gilbert knew anything about Amaterasu or Tsukuyomi, and even if he did, I am sure he would have said that he needed to use metaphors and allusions that would resonate with his audience. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

... or another instance of Gilbert's topsy-turvy view of the world, perhaps. Jmc (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

File:The Mikado Chappell Vocal Score cover (c.1895).jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:The Mikado Chappell Vocal Score cover (c.1895).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 14, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-03-14. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Cover of the c. 1895 edition of the vocal score to The Mikado. First performed in London in 1885, The Mikado is the ninth of fourteen comic opera collaborations between the composer Arthur Sullivan and the dramatist W. S. Gilbert. Gilbert was able to satirise British politics and institutions freely by setting the opera in a fictionalised Japan. The story: After a cheap tailor is appointed Lord High Executioner of Titipu, he tries to save the town by pretending to execute the disguised son of the Mikado (the Emperor of Japan) for the capital offence of flirting; this scheme backfires. The Mikado's original run at the Savoy Theatre was 672 performances, nearly a record at the time. It remains one of the most frequently performed musical theatre pieces in history, with regular professional and amateur revivals.Illustration: Unknown; restoration: Adam Cuerden

• In particular, I'd appreciate help with a one- or two-line plot summary. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Crisco 1492, are you saying that the plot summary in the squib is too long? If so, how about: "After a cheap tailor is appointed Lord High Executioner, he tries to save his town by pretending to execute the disguised son of the emperor for the capital offence of flirting; this scheme backfires." You could also shorten the squib a bit by changing "comic opera collaborations between the composer Arthur Sullivan and the dramatist W. S. Gilbert." to "Gilbert and Sullivan comic operas." -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• This ran a little over six months ago. At the time I was having trouble condensing the plot to a line or two for the main page. Adam got it, I believe. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Japanese setting and assertions of stereotyping

How is it possible that the word 'yellowface' doesn't appear in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.105.110 (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a section of the article called "Japanese setting" that discusses recent assertions that the opera (or productions of it) may stereotype Asians. The word also does not exist in the article about Madam Butterfly or other popular operas with Asian settings. Perhaps the concept of "Yellowface" needs its own Wikipedia article? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

'Yellowface' rather dubiously applies to Mikado, since there's no dialect humor at all--everybody talks and acts English, while dressing in ersatz Japanese garb and makeup (and why precisely don't Noh and Kabuki theater in Japan, which include heavily stylized performances, unnatural body language, terrible behavior by nearly all the characters, and very thick make-up count as 'yellowface'?). I think people trying to apply this to Mikado are stretching, but because in fact there's so very little they have to work with here, this is a work most people have heard of, and the people who put on productions are extremely vulnerable to having their corporate sponsors pull out on them, they're an easy target--much easier than a football team is for Native Americans to persuade to make one simple change that wouldn't impact the games at all. I don't think the 'yellowface' accusers speak for most Americans of southeast Asian descent, but it's certainly worth doing an article about if the trend continues.Xfpisher (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Right or wrong, expect the "trend" to continue ... and snowball.... 143.85.18.26 (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

English baby-talk

"The headsman's name, Ko-Ko, is similar to that of the scheming Ko-Ko-Ri-Ko in Ba-ta-clan by Jacques Offenbach."

Or - yes, citation needed - "cocoa"? Pinkbeast (talk) 12:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This is remotely relevant because ... ?

In popular culture

I've added a cite for the two SFnal references, but frankly, this section is becoming a bit of a bloated lump - and no wonder, given the sheer number of people who've referenced G&S. Would there be support for trimming all but the most significant references down to the very basics of author, medium, work, and year? Pinkbeast (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I've just gone through to streamline the text. I don't think it needs to be trimmed much more, as the items noted all are described as very significant. There should not be included simply "passing mentions" of the show (like in the Stranger in a Strange Land example that you added) -- everything in the section should be a substantial quote or reference to an important/popular culture source, an no new unreferenced information should be added. If you have specific items in mind that you think should be cut from the section please list them so we can discuss them. BTW, when you add a WP:CITE to Wikipedia, please include all the available bibliographic information, such as the author name, title of the item cited, publisher name, and date of publication and access. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't add the Heinlein; it had been in the page for ages. I restored it with a cite after you removed it for being uncited. If you actually thought it was too trivial a reference it would have been best to write that in your edit summary, and then I wouldn't have gone looking for a cite for it, saving both of us some bother. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that. But I did use the cite you found for other items. I had come across that website at one point and used it elsewhere, but it is helpful here, so thanks. Anyhow, as I said, if you think any other items in the section are too trivial to include, let's talk about them. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we might leave it be for now. You've squashed it up considerably. I dunno that the Heinlein was especially trivial, but I'll defer to your judgement since you've put in the work to improve matters. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)