This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles
Wikipedia has a surprisingly long and interesting article on the word "cholo," so I've linked to it, but the word is a tricky one to translate. I know that "of mixed blood" is better than "not purebred," but there might be a better translation out there. I'm open to suggestions. I just don't want to make this (background) paragraph too much longer than it already is. Thanks for any help. ForDorothy 23:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone explain why the title would be pronounced as indicated, with a "k" sound? I would expect "ch" in a French word to be pronounced "sh"; and in a Spanish word, "ch". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.78.1 (talk) 03:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Half the performance history now relates just to New York. This is unbalanced. We need to prioritze the original premiere and give equal weight to local premieres elsewhere. - Kleinzach 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering what to do about this, too. It's particularly annoying because of the cavalier way in which the opera was treated there (maybe it should all go into a Trivia section!). Given that most of the named Met participants have their own articles, the info on how many performances they sang, etc., could be removed to those articles and the whole thing cut down to a couple of sentences. --GuillaumeTell 09:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that might be the best solution. - Kleinzach 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the connection between the two works given here and the subject of the article? Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 07:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a reference from Grove which I hope explains it - unless these are in the wrong place? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 10:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thanks. --Kleinzach 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons given for blanking this new section were that the material in it is not notable. Each production listed is referenced from a serious musical publication (there's a TV broadcast of one of them on Youtube). Each one has at least a 'notable' (in Wikipedia terms) participant. None are on the level of, say, the Patrice Chéreau Ring cycle, but they all give broader picture and a little more international balance for any passing reader. In time I'm sure as the section fills out a bigger and better picture will emerge of its regularity (but I doubt there have been hundreds of productions in say the last 50 years, or more).
I strongly suspect that 50% of productions mentioned in the performance history sections of all the opera articles on Wikipedia have not achieved two or three hundred performances, toured internationally nor had a book devoted to them; but I can't think why they would be deleted.
Given the time and effort many people put into improving and expanding articles, a little more hesitation before blanking would be helpful. I'm looking forward to improving the article further. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for content within an article is not notability, but rather WP:NOTEWORTHYness. I did not say that these productions are not noteworthy, I merely said that you had not established that they are noteworthy. The fact that someone reviewed a production in a publication does not make it noteworthy. Among all the many productions of this operetta over the past century, the question is: which have been the most important ones? I would expect that Andrew Lamb or Ganzl, or one of the other writers who focus on operetta, would have discussed which were the most important productions. I notice that you have not mentioned any French productions, which is pretty surprising. I'm sorry you are offended, but of course it wasn't hard for you to undo my edit, and perhaps I should have just opened the discussion first, so if you like, I extend an apology and will try to be patient. But I really do think there needs to be some objective standard used for finding/deciding which productions are the most important/encyclopedic. I have never thought, for example, that the production in which Trial by Jury premiered alongside La Perichole was noteworthy with respect to the latter, although that production of La Perichole involved notable people and ran for months. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the additions. We give 130 words to what was plainly a mangled production by a New York company, and the additions rebalance the article. Besch was a more distinguished director of opera than Ritchard; and a production at either the Buxton or the Garsington festivals is, to my mind, ipso facto noteworthy. Elsewhere we give details of ten productions of Princess Ida and eight of The Sorcerer, with nothing to demonstrate that any of them was particularly noteworthy, and the handful of productions of La Périchole mentioned here seem to me to bear mention on a similar basis. Tim riley talk 07:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gänzl (p. 1592 of his Encyclopedia) writes: "Other top Parisian prima donnas later took turns at La Périchole. In 1877 Anna Judic made a Parisian appearance in the role and in 1895 Jeanne Granier was also seen as Périchole, with Guy as her Piquillo, at the Variétés … In the later years of the twentieth century La Périchole held a position and a popularity in the Offenbach canon greater than at perhaps any other time, a popularity witnessed by several recordings and by Paris revivals in 1969 (Théâtre de Paris), 1979 (Théâtre Mogador 19 May) and 1984 (Théâtre des Champs-Élysées 17 September)." Gänzl also mentions a new production at the Vienna Volksoper in 1996. Tim riley talk 08:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at balancing the article. By all means dive in and add or amend. I now feel that the UK revivals receive too much coverage in the main space, and I suggest we footnote the Singers Company and Dorset productions as "other productions included...".
I have had a shot at that. What think you? Tim riley talk 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I will give it a proofread, but I feel more confident, now, that the productions mentioned focus on the most historically significant ones. I apologize again for my ham-handed approach in my earlier objections. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One question, Tim: I know of many, may amateur performances of this operetta, both in the US and UK. I imagine there have been many in France or elsewhere. Do Traubner, Lamb, Ganzl or anyone else provide a basis for stating that there are, or continue to be, "frequent", "regular" or "many" amateur productions? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in any of them about that, as far as I can see. My own (and highly WP:OR) feeling is that in Britain, at any rate, the piece is not often done by amateurs. I shouldn't be surprised if there were more amateur stagings in the US, but I really don't know. Tim riley talk 18:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned that production both in the revivals and the recordings section. (I've just been watching a video of it and I laughed aloud at the Viceroy's first number.) Tim riley talk 17:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this says that the 1870 London production was at Prince's Theatre , not Princess's Theatre??? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link goes to a source I don't regard as reliable. The production was at the Princess's not the Prince's, as the press coverage for June 1870 makes crystal clear. The page claims Gänzl's Book of the Musical Theatre as its source, but Gänzl (p. 306) gets the name of the theatre right. There wasn't a Prince's Theatre in London in 1870, as the perpetrator of the webpage ought to have known. Tim riley talk 08:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I look again I see the page gets the date of the American premiere wrong by a decade. (And the writer doesn't know about possessive apostrophes – Princes Theatre!) I earnestly advise against referring to that website again. Tim riley talk 10:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, just checking. I also was not able to find a Prince's Theatre in operation in 1870, so I am not surprised by your answer. Sources often get such names confused. I have seen so many errors concerning the Prince of Wales Theatre vs. the Prince of Wales's Theatre, Princess vs. Princess's, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much improved, thank you both.
Is The Stage right? The Chichester Festival Theatre performance of the Peter Knapp Singer Company production was on BBC2 on 20 September that year (it is on Youtube) - did BBC also do one from Covent Garden?
the Sutherland caption could perhaps be clarified. I thought it was the muppets but the full file documentation says 'one of a series of programs Sutherland did called "Who's Afraid of Opera?" ' presumably not the whole piece, maybe just one song.
I have not yet seen Le Carrosse d'or - but should it be mentioned here?
The Avant-Scene record review (of 2-5 in the list) gives some detail of what is recorded in each issue; I suppose more generally might be to have more detail on the changes Offenbach made in the article. Keck has recorded entractes and melodrames written for different productions Paris, Vienna, London. But that can probably wait.
These translations probably ought to have a tweak :"Ah ! les autres étaient bien gris" and "On me proposait d'être infâme".
Thanks again for your improvements.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a mish-mash of citation styles. If nobody objects, I'll tidy it up into Notes, References and Sources. Tim riley talk 09:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think he and his article are worthy of being featured. No.1 : can we get rid of all the phoneticisms in the first few words, or lose them in a footnote? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
