Talk:Filmzauber

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

Balance[edit]

It is important that Wikipedia articles present a balanced view of their subjects. Unfortunately this one is weighted too much towards the English adaptation. Can contributors please contribute to the whole article in a balanced way, that means the writing about the original work as well as derivative ones. The original work is still being performed today and is the version most likely to be heard today. Thank you for your understanding. --Kleinzach 03:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I note that Maytime just covers the Romberg musical, not the Kollo Wie einst im Mai. This seems sensible. Perhaps splitting Filmzauber and the English adaptation thing into two articles would also be a good idea, since the article barely hangs together in its present form. --Kleinzach 06:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We just covered this at Le droit d'aînesse. Everyone was quite clear that we should not split the original and English versions of these operettas. Wie einst im Mai is a different situation, since Maytime is not a version of Wie einst im Mai; it is a new musical with both a different composer and a new libretto. It is simply based on the German work in the same way that West Side Story is based on Romeo and Juliet. Please see the talk page for Le droit d'aînesse. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers: No facetiousness, please. As you know, I took part in the discussion at Le droit d'aînesse so I don't need directing to it. It's been established very clearly over the years that these articles are case by case. In some instances the adaptations are close to the original works, sometimes they are very different. --Kleinzach 06:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Kleinzach, the discussion at Le droit d'aînesse clearly reflects the majority view, for operettas that had a successful English version, that the information about the two versions should be presented together, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. Compare Flower Drum Song, recently promoted to FA, where information about two different versions of the show are discussed in relation to each other in a way that helps the reader understand both versions. That should be our goal. I agree that the articles should be "balanced", but the way to balance them is to add adequate information about the foreign-language productions, not to suppress information about the English-language productions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restructured this slightly. First of all, I've added The Girl on the Film to the lede. As long as both versions are covered in the same article and as long as The Girl on the Film redirects here, it is a disservice to the reader not to mention it. Secondly, ledes are supposed to have redundant information as they are a summary of the article. This is slightly different from Le droit d'aînesse, where the original version had been pretty much eclipsed by the English version, while this one is still performed. Hence I've made the English version as a subsidiary topic with its own sub-topics, and kept the original as the main topic. I see no reason to make this into two separate articles at this point, as the two versions have the same composer and a book largely adapted from the original. If the article is "unbalanced", then it it's up to those who have an interest in that area and access to the appropriate sources to expand the coverage of the German one. All Wikipedia articles are works in progress. It's neither helpful or appropriate to split this into two articles, simply because there is currently more information on the English version in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voceditenore: Hmm. It's important to check out the information thoroughly before coming to judgments. That's why I wrote above: "Perhaps splitting Filmzauber and the English adaptation thing into two articles would also be a good idea . . . ." I have an open mind on this, however you are wrong when you say "the two versions have the same composer". The original work is by two composers (Walter Kollo and Willy Bredschneider) and according to the article the English adaptation has additional music by Albert Szirmai. How much additional music is not clear. (I've added the German musical number list which sheds a bit more light on this.) Regarding the barbed statement "it's up to those who have an interest in that area . . . to expand the coverage of the German one" can I remind you that this is a German work. if the subject interests you (and other contributors) and you wish to contribute (with your usual skill at finding sources as per Le droit d'aînesse) that's great - I assume you can read some basic German, right? Having said all that, I agree making the English version a subsidiary topic is sensible, at least as a temporary solution. --Kleinzach 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I can't read basic German, I'd have to rely on google translations, hence I generally don't contribute to articles on German works unless I have access to reference books in English which deal with the work. Even then, I prefer to write about works whose original librettos I can understand. Secondly, I'm fully aware that a third composer wrote extra music for the English version. Thirdly, since the two English language reference books that I have been able to check via Google Books, The Musical: A Concise History and Musical Theater Synopses: An Index, tend to treat these as a pair, e.g. from Musical Theater Synopses: An Index: "Girl on the Film, The (Bredschneider, Willy & Kollo, Walter) see Filmzauber", I see no urgency at this point to split the articles or to exclude mention of the English adaptation from the lede. Voceditenore (talk) 15:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia isn't written to a deadline, and since we can't commandeer editors to work on what we'd like them to do, it's a normal state of affairs that some articles will be missing desirable information — sometimes for years — before someone comes along and rectifies the omission. When and if (which could be never) sufficient information comes to light, the question of forking the English version can be re-raised. Marc Shepherd (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts:

  • I fully agree with the last comment, by Marc - if the problem is omission of information, we will achieve balance - eventually - by adding material, and we shouldn't remove material that is otherwise appropriate.
  • In general, it would probably make sense to split the article if (a) there was enough material to make two reasonable-size articles; (b) the two versions of the drama were not linked in a way discussed in newspapers and other sources, and (c) there wasn't significant overlap. I think (a) isn't yet true; (b) is true, unlike Flower Drum Song, where the changes were a matter of sourced discussion; and (c) also isn't the case, at the moment, because there is no indication that the plot is different (though I note that it is part of section pertaining to the English version, rather than in a separate (level 2) section of its own. (The songs, on the other hand, differ significantly - 17 versus 12, for starters.) So only one (two?) of the three criteria is/are currently met.
  • Per WP:NOT and WP:UNDUE, I suggest removing the full cast list; listing the principals (four) seems defensible.
  • The objective is to keep the reader in mind. Combining two unlike subjects into a single article does the reader little service, but neither does separating into two a subject that has been discussed (in reliable sources) as a single matter (as, again, the versions of Flower Drum Song. At the moment, I'm of the opinion that with more material, it's likely that the best solution would be to split the article. (I'm not sure I'd call that a "fork", however.) If/when it is split, the reader will obviously be able to follow links from each article to the other, and can make comparisons his/herself. (And the links should be in the lead sections; it's not clear that anything more than that is required, either.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I started this discussion (about 'balance') we've made a lot of progress and the article has developed. (Credit to those who have contributed!). Without actually hearing the music, it's difficult to tell how close the adaptation is to the original. (AFAIK there are no recordings of any English version songs.) The setting and the names of almost all the roles are different. (I've been looking for the German role list, but so far I haven't found it in a usable form, though there is a (rather complex) German synopsis.)
Re. cast lists: opera and operetta articles invariably list the singers in full (in tabular form). There are a number of advantages to this. Some readers (performers for example) will have a legitimate interest in minor roles, also listing them helps clarify the synopsis, and celebrated singers may have undertaken the roles early in their careers etc.
As a general comment, combining original works with impresario-created pastiches (as created for the middle class English, American and 'Empire' market) is apt to be problematic when the available background information comes from such a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources, and the style of WP editing is so different. No doubt jingoistic historical whimsy has its place in WP articles, but it looks odd when it is combined with factual information from authoritative publications about original works by historically notable composers. --Kleinzach 00:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the info on the original version. Google indicates that some of the English songs have been recorded. I agree about the role/cast list: The Opera project, Musicals project and G&S project all include a fairly complete roles/cast list. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow toiler in the vineyard of operetta and other musical articles, I make so bold as to add my comments, for what they are worth. It seems to me that Kleinzach is in a minority on the subject before us. As, I see, has been mentioned already here, the English versions of these operettas should generally be presented together with the originals in the same articles. To recap the discussion there:

  • Wehwalt said: "...readers will be interested in both versions and will expect to have both conveniently to hand..."
  • Ssilvers said: "What purpose would be served by making our readers click back and forth between two articles about the two versions...?"
  • Marc Shepherd said: "The default position, I think, is that all of the versions of a work are described in one article, unless it becomes too lengthy"
  • Jack said: "It makes no sense to me to have two articles. Best to keep all the information here in the one article"
  • Roscelese said: "keep information about all the productions in the same article".

Kleinzach is naturally entitled to her or his position, which I see has been stoutly maintained these many years. But it is not, I think, the majority view here, and we are in danger of missing opportunities for excellence for the sake of a doctrinaire, minority position. I don't know of many (indeed, I can't offhand think of any) of these foreign-language operettas articles that have been promoted to GA or FA. I suspect this may be because other editors have been discouraged from adding information to them by the deletion of useful material (as happened to this article recently – now restored) and threats of splitting the articles. Per contra, strides forward have been made with operas, classical music, G&S and musicals with plenty of GAs and FAs. I think we ought to encourage editors to expand the operetta articles, and not constantly block the addition of useful content. I hope these few thoughts are helpful to all interested Wiki-colleagues. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a complete misrepresentation of my opinions.
I have not proposed splitting the article. Please check the revision history here is you think this is incorrect.
As I wrote earlier "It's important to check out the information thoroughly before coming to judgments. That's why I wrote above: "Perhaps splitting Filmzauber and the English adaptation thing into two articles would also be a good idea . . . ." I have an open mind on this" . It still isn't clear to me whether the adaptation should be regarded as a separate work.
Can you please do me the basic courtesy of reading my opinions before you make these assertions?
I'd also like a explanation of your reference to "the deletion of useful material (as happened to this article recently – now restored)". What are you referring to? Who deleted it? --Kleinzach 07:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is where Kleinzach removed information required by WP:LEAD: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filmzauber&diff=403470777&oldid=403423721 Frankly, your denial of remembering having done this, only two days later, is not credible. It is not that you don't remember deleting it, it is just that you don't agree with following the WP:LEAD guideline, which I cited in my edit summary when I added the information. As for now claiming that you did not suggest splitting the article, you wrote: "Perhaps splitting Filmzauber and the English adaptation thing into two articles would also be a good idea". Again, it is not credible that you do not know that is what you said; in addition, you have been making this same threat consistently with respect to operetta articles on Wikipedia since I began editing in 2006. This sad episode reminds me of the last person in town to switch from candles and kerosene to electricity, while shouting about how the Devil is in the newfangled technology. The opera project, G&S project and classical music project are all now producing high-quality articles, rapidly being promoted to GA and FA. Please stop being be obstructive. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem and completely out of line. I will not be replying to Ssilvers. I didn't come here to vent my spleen on other editors. I came here to contribute to an article about a German musical work, not to trade dumb insults on a talk page. What are my contributions? Five basic sections. If that's a definition of 'obstruction', let's have more of it from everybody.--Kleinzach 00:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can add me too to the list re Le droit d'aînesse above. I said: "If properly written and structured there's no need for two articles. They'd be counterproductive." And I tend to agree with that view here as well. I've found a few more sources, which may be helpful to those currently working on this and I'll put them in a separate section. Voceditenore (talk) 19:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my comment quoted above with regard to keeping all productions in the same article unless they are substantially different or unless the article has so much content that it becomes unwieldy. I'd also like to add that, if the English version is sufficiently notable, it should be mentioned in the lead, contra Kleinzach. Roscelese (talk) 05:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not contra Kleinzach. Mention of the adaptation in the lead was appropriate after the reorganization of the article into primary and secondary subjects by Voceditenore here. That's why it wasn't challenged. Please check the facts before you attribute opinions to people. --Kleinzach 07:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Once again: You removed it from the WP:LEAD but stopped fighting it when you saw that Voceditenore agreed with me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kleinzach, I thought you were opposed to having it in the lead since I saw that you'd removed it, but if you've since changed your opinion, I apologize. Roscelese (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted! However I haven't changed my opinion. In common with most other editors, I believe information should not be duplicated in close juxtaposition. Following the reorganization (and gradual lengthening of the article) I thought the reference to the adaptation in the lead was reasonable. If you look at articles on Wikipedia, I think you will agree that the longer the article, the more the lead functions as a summary of the article. As Confucius said, "The gentleman is not invariably for or against anything. He is on the side of what is moral." --Kleinzach 23:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources[edit]

MIMES AND MUSIC.
"George Edwardes has had under consideration two different pieces for production at the London Gaiety — one a German comic opera, the other a musical piece by Mr. Paul A. Rubens. It is upon the first that his choice has now definitely fallen, and it will succeed "The Sunshine Girl" soon after Easter. "Filmzauber" ("The Wonders of Films") was originally performed at the Berliner Theatre, Berlin, in October last, and has since bean successfully played throughout that country. It is frankly described as a farce, and, as its name implies, the kinematograph is an important factor in the development of the story. Mr. J. T. Tanner is to take the original in hand and adapt it to the requirements of' the Gaiety stage, while the German score will be reinforced by the addition of half a dozen new numbers."
SECURES TWO NEW PRODUCTIONS
"Chappell & Co., Ltd., Takes Over Both Performing and Publishing Rights of "Filmzauber" and "The Girl from Mexico." Chappell & Co., the prominent music publishers of London and New York, have acquired both the performing and publishing rights for England and America of the latest Berlin musical play success, "Filmzauber," with music by Willy Bredschneider and Walter Kollo, and also of the operetta "The Girl from Mexico" a new production with music by Albert Szirmai, and which has proven a big success in Budapest."
MANAGERS BRING PLAY NOVELTIES
Summary - Filmzauber was also to be performed in French starring Elsie Janis at either the Gymnase or the Renaissance Theatre in Paris.

Voceditenore (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the NY Times is reporting on the upcoming schedule of shows to be produced by Charles Dillingham. They quote Dillingham as saying that in Paris he arranged for "Elsie Janis to play in French the leading part in The Girl on the Film" in Paris, so apparently a French translation of the English version. But we cannot tell from this whether the production actually occurred. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is merely a pointer to something which needs further investigation, possible via Gallica]
  • Ganzl [and Traubner].
Does anyone have it? I understand that he mentions some touring of The Girl on the Film. Thanks, Voceditenore! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in two Ganzl books: The encyclopedia of the musical theatre and The musical: a concise history. Unfortunately, I've only been able to access snippets via Google books. It looks as if it's also discussed/mentioned in Operetta: a theatrical history by Richard Traubner
Ganzl's snippet from The encyclopedia of the musical theatre is tantalizing, but no more of it comes up for me. Nor does the Traubner. Sigh. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Filmzauber&oldid=1202001747"