Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 91

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 ← Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 → Archive 95
Archives Table of Contents

Aria 'titles' and translations

It's been a while since I've been around WikiProject Opera. I happened to be looking at the Otello article and the translations of some of the aria and scene titles bothered me. I want to tidy them up, but before I do I want to make sure I'm in line with the intended standard here. From the Project article, I gather that the standard is to use list the first line in the original language, and then follow that with the familiar English title if there is one (which there rarely is) or a reasonably accurate translation otherwise. In Otello, several of them match that standard, but some are clumsy translations and/or old-fashioned English that sounds like it came from a singing translation. Also, some are accurate translations of the full line but don't match the Italian listed. (For example, "Rejoice! The Mussulman's pride is buried in the sea" accurately translates what Otello actually sings, but the Italian shown is just "Esultate! l'orgoglio musulmano" and doesn't continue with "sepolto è in mar", so to make them match either the Italian needs to be lengthened or the English needs to be shortened.)

Am I understanding the standard right? Is there anything else anyone wants to set me straight on before I set about editing aria-title-translations? (If I get ambitious, I might tackle some other operas as well, but one step at a time....) Iglew (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that you are understanding the standard right. And improving some of those ghastly translations (mostly, as in Otello, taken from Leo Melitz, whose 1921 out-of-copyright synopses provided some "quick wins" before my time on WP) would benefit a lot of articles. For your "Esultate!" example - and any other similar cases - I would strongly argue for lengthening the Italian. There are other examples elsewhere where both the Italian and English need lengthening, e.g. in La bohème: "Vecchia zimarra – "Old coat" (Melitz again)! Hope this helps. --GuillaumeTell 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Done, along with some tweaking of the synopsis along the way. A few observations, which I'll note here rather than there since they're of generic relevance. The Willow Song was referenced twice, once with the first line of the recit and a second with the first line of the aria. It was confusing, so I combined them. I stuck with the aria's first line, though that's not an obvious call. (Do we have a policy on this, or is it case by case?) I didn't want to revisit the question of which titles to include, so other than that I merely edited the titles already there. But I question the value of many of them, particularly the ones (and there are several) that are just the non-descript first line of a short but plot-heavy scene. Unless these are standard CD-track labels, I don't see how they're of any use to the reader. If I were doing it from scratch, I think I'd limit myself to titles of recognizable set pieces only, even though in most operas through-composed with no breaks those will be scarce. If landmarks are needed, perhaps parenthesized notes of "scene two", "scene three", etc, would be more useful. Iglew (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, in Otello the Italian and English are separated by slashes, but in several other articles I see dashes (of varying construction). Is there a consensus preference? Iglew (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Pass! --GuillaumeTell 19:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a particular consensus here one way or another re / vs. –. Your're right, there's a huge amount of variation. My personal preference is actually for putting the English translation in parentheses. I find all the dashes and slashes clunky and inelegant. But that's just me. ;-)Voceditenore (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
But usually the aria title is already in parentheses. You prefer to nest them? Iglew (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Nesting isn't great either, but it's my personal 'least of the evils'. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Selected recordings vs. Recordings

I've noticed that the word "Selected" is being removed from some of these sections. I'm opposed to that, since it indicates succinctly that the list is incomplete. (A "complete" list is difficult to achieve, and is often soon outdated.) And the items in the lists are clearly "selected" by the editors of Wikipedia. Also I would be against removing any recording an editor has taken the trouble to add to such a list, unless the information is clearly incorrect, i.e., the recording was never made. (Personally I'm a big fan of these lists.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The heading was originally Recordings and then a couple of years ago got changed to Selected Recordings with not much discussion. Following this discussion last June, we changed the article format guidlelines back to Recordings and are gradually changing over the existing articles. The main gist of the rationale is that selected by whom and on what criteria referenced to which reliable source? - it's inherently POV. Plus the large tables were overwhelming the articles. There are other ways to indicate that the list is complete, i.e. via a footnote or brief sentence stating this. A link can also be added in the External links or References section to the relevant page on operadis-opera-discography.org.uk. Here's an example for La bohème.
For obscure or 'new' operas, the list of recordings is self-limiting, often only one or two. Sometimes all that has been recorded are individual arias or the overture. For well-known operas, we are now hiving those sections off to separate discographies with a referenced prose summary of the recording history in the Recordings section of the main article. See La bohème#Recordings vs. La bohème discography and L'incoronazione di Poppea#Recording history and L'incoronazione di Poppea discography for examples. For copyright reasons etc. we do not include "pirate" or "bootleg" recordings in Discography articles or Recordings sections, nor do we include compilations. Could you give an example of where a specific opera recording has been removed? Voceditenore (talk) 07:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I read the discussion, and I can understand why it is being done. It's not a big deal to me, and like you say, a note can be added that the list is incomplete. Also, I don't know of any specific recordings that have been removed. I read in a discussion somewhere else where someone was arguing that lists of recordings should not be allowed (forgot where). I really like having them in Wikipedia, where they don't get lost (so many external sites disappear), and also we can add to them. They're one of my favorite sections. BTW, thanks for the detailed response. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I checked some of your other links. I'm really impressed with what has been done. Thanks again for the help. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

More on discographies

As part of a private drive to improve some of my early contributions, I have re-visited Karl Ridderbusch and am constructing a discography here. I original visited some commercial websites and an Italian opera discography site. I've now started on Operadis where there are over a hundred pages that mention him. I'm wondering on what people's opinions are on what to include. At the moment I have ignored a CD ROM with many operas on it and a tape reel. I'm thinking about some that are only on compact cassette withe the label havign an individual's name suggesting the possibility of a private operation. Any views? Do people want to prune the labels no one's heard of at the end of it?--Peter cohen (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

On the whole, I'd leave the "bootleg" stuff out, unless it's been discussed (as opposed to listed) in a reliable source. Charles Handelman† Live Opera is a private bootleg 'company' that produces copies of off-air recordings on demand, plus some taped by private individuals during actual performances (possibly illegally). Other companies like this (although I don't know if they're on your discography) are Celestial Audio, Ed Rosen's Premiere Opera (and its earlier version Legato Classics), Live Opera Heaven, and House of Opera. I've also found that in the 'catalogues' for these operations, there are many, many errors both in the casting and in the performance date and place. Their documentation, such as it is, relies on descriptions from the people who trade or sell the recordings to them. Voceditenore (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
†Having fled the newsgroup rec.music.opera, I had hoped that name would never darken my screen again. VdT: you owe me a new monitor. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You actually subscribed to that den of deviant discourse? I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.:-). New monitor is on the way. Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll scrub those. I'd already sent a query to operadis because Handelman's cast for a Bayreuth article does not match that for any cycle that year at the official festival site. WHat about Fachmann Fur Klassischer Musik, The Opera Lovers, Oriel Music Society? Opera Depot seems to be available through Amazon.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Opera Depot is another one-man pirate operation, e.g. [1]. On Amazon, their recordings are only listed as "Available from these sellers", i.e. not part of Amazon's regular stock. The Opera Lovers is another one-man operation, set up in Canada to avoid US copyright laws (it sells a lot of Met off-air recordings). I've never heard of Fachmann für Klassischer Musik and they have a very low internet profile. But judging from this (page 10), they sell (or sold) off-air recordings. I assume the Oriel Music Society is this one. I have no idea how good their documentation is or what the sources are for their recordings. Frankly, I'd leave all these sorts of labels out. Apart from the dodgy documentation and very dubious copyright status, their recordings may sometimes be unauthorised 're-issues' from LPs or discontinued 'real' CDs, thus duplicating another entry. For ones that are off-air recordings, perhaps the way to go is to have a separate section on broadcasts listing them by date and television/radio station and then let the reader figure out how to get pirate copies.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Update Actually having snooped about a bit, I think Oriel Music Society is not the Oxford one above, but might be another name for the Oriel Music Trust (both use the OMS prefix for their catalogue numbers). Their recordings appear to be held in libraries, so are probably legit. Voceditenore (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
General comment: as I've said before, I'd avoid listing "bootlegs" unless they have been subsequently "legitimised" by record companies in good standing. --Folantin (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Amy Black

This stub about a recently deceased opera singer has had a notability tag added. Is it save-able? 75.41.110.200 (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't really think so. The opera roles that are mentioned are all small ones, and non-specific mentions such as "seasons with Glyndebourne and English National Opera" probably mean that she was in the chorus. I've never heard of "the European Opera" or "the European Union Opera". The reviews on her website are all of her performance in pantomime. --GuillaumeTell 22:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The "international repute" in the BBC article is highly dubious, but notability guidelines allow for local stars, dont they? Sparafucil (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
At best, it would be a 'scrape through'. There was multiple news coverage of her death, but more because someone on the brink of a potentially promising career had died so young, and initially under puzzling circumstances. From some of the obituaries, it's clear that the ENO and Glyndebourne work were in the chorus. She had one minor role with English Touring Opera (Merecedes in Carmen) and 3 bit parts in a piano-accompanied performance of excerpts from Porgy & Bess at Wexford. The article was nominated for deletion, but the nominator didn't give a reason and the AfD was closed by a non-admin after 24 hours and 3 "keeps", so there you have it. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD Giles Pilgrim Morris

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giles Pilgrim Morris for members who may wish to comment. Voceditenore (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists of singers in articles

One of my big bug-bears are articles, mostly about voice types, that rapidly degenerate into lengthy lists of singers who allegedly have that voice type. They add nothing to the reader's understanding of the term, swamp the article, and especially in the case of Xs in popular music sections, they attract drive-by additions of singers whose articles provide no references whatsoever to verify that they have a contralto voice. Thus leaving these articles continually marred by Original research and requiring constant monitoring. To stop the rot in Baritone, I created List of baritones in non-classical music. Every entry has an inline cite, which is required to add an article to the list. Once I did that, there have been virtually no further drive-by additions, or any additions at all for that matter - too much work for the drivers.

Contralto was starting to similarly degenerate. Today, as an interim measure, I split off the list sections to separate articles, List of operatic contraltos and List of contraltos in non-classical music. Having said that, I'm not sure this is an optimal solution as for some voice types, the lists can become huge and basically congruent with their categories. My preference would be to remove such lists from these articles and instead add the category, e.g. Category:Contraltos to the See also section. There is currently a discussion about this at Talk:Contralto. All comments there would be welcome.Voceditenore (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work! I never (well, hardly ever) look at the articles on voice types, mainly because of some editors' obsessions with the fach system and putting particular singers' voices into small boxes. My (related) concern is what to do about opera articles that have acquired swathes of singer listcruft, including redlinks: e.g. in respect of the role of the Marschallin here - any suggestions? --GuillaumeTell 16:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I did it - just like that!--Smerus (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Bravo, Smerus! Now here's some more cruft — Bel canto#Selected singers (selected by whom and how does this aid out understanding of the term?) and this utterly pointless list: Bass (voice type)#Some prominent operatic basses on disc. I eagerly await your ministrations.;-) Voceditenore (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Done. It's easy when you have convictions. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself'.--Smerus (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally the (alleged) comparison of the Marschallin with Hans Sachs at Der_Rosenkavalier#Recent_performance_history is one of the daftest things I have ever seen written about opera - and I have seen quite a few.--Smerus (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This really takes the biscuit! --GuillaumeTell 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Abolished --Smerus (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The voice type articles in general are quite poor and plagued not only by lists of singers, but also by lists of roles, some of which are gross over-simplifications and others, simply wrong. But GuillaumeTell is right, it's a problem in many, many opera articles. It's partly because editors use it to pad out an article rather than putting in the work to write connected, referenced prose that is pertinent and focused on developing the topic. Others use it to get a link back to an article that would otherwise be orphaned. Yet more use it to aggrandize a particular singer by putting them in stellar company and/or make sure sure their favourite gets a mention. There are ways that particularly distinguished exponents of a role can be worked into an article, but that can be done via performance history, recording history, etc. or by reference to a summary article in a published reliable source that discusses a particular role in depth. For example, that whole bit in Der Rosenkavalier shouldn't have any names there as 'stars' for whom it has been a vehicle without an inline citation verifying this. I find that the cruft-adders often back-off from re-adding their 'chosen one' if they have to provide a citation. Voceditenore (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Gingerly I wade into this discussion. Might the solution be to eliminate mention of specific singers and instead scour the sources for the desire voice type (sources by either the original creators, or the way roles are described in various books)? -- kosboot (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC) -- just to amplify, I don't mean one-word descriptions of voice, but more like phrases, for example, something like: "soubrette, but capable of low notes in a dramatic capacity." -- kosboot (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Stubness

I've just put up The Giant (opera), and someone has, not unreasonably in the general context, marked it as a stub. However, it seems highly unlikely that there is anything significant more to be said about it. I would appreciate (clean) suggestions, if there are any, of how it might be developed to beyond stub status - if it can't indeed be developed, what's the point of calling it a stub?--Smerus (talk) 15:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Try adding the stuff from these:
  • "Premiere cast": [2]
  • Prokofiev himself reminiscing on the work: [3]
  • "Premiere" as depicted in this BBC Documentary: [4]
That should be enough to get it to "start", given the nature of the topic. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But now that it's at 'start', how will it ever get beyond :-}? There is a serious point here, quite a few articles at 'start' status are highly unlikely ever to progress, or be progressable.--Smerus (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Manuel de Falla Templates

There are currently two templates for the composer Manuel de Falla. One for his operas and one for all of his works (incl. operas). I was wondering whether they needed to be merged, just remove the operas from the complete works template or just leave them as they are.--Pianoplonkers♫(talk) 07:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been trying to find another similar example. There are plenty of classical composer templates (see Category:Classical composer templates, where I notice that Falla isn't represented but should be), but most of them are for sub-sets of the composer's works.
However,
But, on the other hand,
On the whole, I prefer the Haydn/Mozart/Rachmaninoff group, which would mean that you don't need to think about removing the operas from the template, but I don't have very strong feelings in either direction. Anyone else?
--GuillaumeTell 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

L'incoronazione di Poppea promoted to FA

Poppea was promoted to Featured Article status today. Many thanks to the members of the project for their help and encouragement. I would be pleased to help in any effort to develop the articles of the other Monteverdi masterpieces - L'Orfeo and Ulisse - if anyone has these in mind as a project. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Cherubini's Eliza or Elisa?

(comment moved from elsewhere) Apologies if this is not the right place to comment, but New Grove Opera, and Edward Dent's The Rise of Romantic Opera both spell the Cherubini opera Elisa (there is a full entry in Grove) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Basil Deane in his monograph on Cherubini calls it Eliza as does Cherubini's Grove biography (from what I can see). I'm not sure what the explanation for the discrepancy is or whether it's very important. We can just make a note of it in the article. --Folantin (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The full article on Elisa in New Grove Opera (I have the 1997 edition) by Stephen C Willis has s, as does the full work list under Cherubini (which is also by Willis); the List of operas by Cherubini also has a few other minor discrepancies relating to opera titles in Grove: Armida abbandonata - Il Giulio Sabino - Anacréon ou L'amour fugitif Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the typos in the list. I suspect whether you append Il to Giulio Sabino is just a matter of personal preference (cf. L'Orfeo/Orfeo by Monteverdi, Il Giasone/Giasone by Cavalli). The Viking Opera Guide refers to Eliza as does the cover of the recording of the overture by Mariner. David Charlton - a major expert in this period of French opera - uses Eliza in The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera. Again, I think this is just a minor discrepancy of no great importance. The sources I used when I created the article used the spelling Eliza so that's the title it's under. I have created the necessary redirects so anyone who knows it as Elisa can get to the right page. --Folantin (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


AfD: Brooklyn Repertory Opera

This article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Repertory Opera for members who may wish to participate. Voceditenore (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

January Composer of the Month

— The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles. —

Any suggestions? I'll be here to fill in the templates before the 31st. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Un po' di verismo? What do you think?
--Mazeppafr (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of that. I already have drafts for Zanetto and La cena delle beffe. This will inspire me to get crackin' and finish off the articles. Actually, those composers wrote some verismo operas but some like Zanetto aren't verismo-y at all. Speaking of which, the article on Verismo could use a real working over.Voceditenore (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

January Opera of the Month

— The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles. —

Any suggestions? I'll be here to fill in the templates before the 31st. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Operas of Benjamin Britten? Paul Bunyan (operetta) and A Midsummer Night's Dream (opera) have no synopsis, Albert Herring, The Rape of Lucretia, Gloriana and Owen Wingrave, maybe others, could do with more background, the Church Parables and Noye's Fludde don't all have roles tables.... --GuillaumeTell 12:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I like this one! Voceditenore (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

January CoM and OoM

I've filled in the two boxes with the suggestions above. They should automatically shift over to the main project page on January 1st. I'll be "away from my desk" until January 7th. In the meantime, Happy New Year to you all. Voceditenore (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Help wanted with music publishers' abbreviation and another question

Any one familiar with how the scoring for Twice Through the Heart - article new today - is abbreviated here on the publishers' site. I'd looked at my programme from the ENO production fo Twice Through the Heart and got the instrumentation list from there. But at a guess the notation on the Schott site indicaters that flute doubles alto flute, oboe doubles cor anglais, both clarinets double bass clarinet and piano doubles celesta. I can't work out all the percussion, but it probably would be going over to top to list them all.

Also, with this being a monodrama, I'm inclined to think that having a cast list box would be over the top and the details in the text are sufficient. (Ps asking about the scoring also at WP:CM)--21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The publisher's list is perhaps a little ambiguous, but I would say you are correct about the doublings, except that it is probably only the second clarinet that doubles bass clarinet (if both doubled, it would say "(2 bcl)". Although it is important for performers to know exactly what percussion instruments will be required, if you list them separately in an article it will give the impression that each requires a separate performer, and this is not likely the case. Often, the actual number of percussionists will be determined for the particular performance, and may be influenced in part by space considerations in the pit, so, yes, you should probably just list "percussion" in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm now trying for GA with this article.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Year in music lists

This is perhaps amongst the lowest of priorities for this discussion page, but I have just been editing 1917 in music, and noticed there are three operas listed on that page, all composed in 1917, but none of them staged in that year. Other "[year] in music" pages list opera productions—not necessarily even first productions—instead of year of composition (for example, 1981 in music lists Stockhausen's Donnerstag aus Licht, composed 1978–80, and 1997 in music lists Marc Blitzstein's Regina, composed 1946–48, first produced 1955). What is the proper protocol here, composition, or staging? Should any and all new productions be included? Should, for example, the first production of Joseph Haydn's L'anima del filosofo in 1951 be included under the "Opera" rubric or, as it is presently listed, under "Events" (it was produced under the alternative title, Orpheus and Eurydice)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, I'd almost forgotten about these sorts of pages. I never link to them in articles. On the whole, they're a bit of a mess and many of the claims aren't even referenced in the articles, let alone the 'year in music' page. Anyhow, the OP's approach to dates has been to take the premiere as the 'reference date' for categorization etc. It's also used in ordering the operas in a composer navbox. When there's a big discrepancy between the date of composition and the (usually posthumous) premiere, we list the date of composition. See Template:Donizetti operas, where Le duc d'Albe premiered in 1882, 40 years after Donizetti's death. The Events section is also quite 'crufty' and heavily weighted to pop. I'd personally put opera premieres in the Opera section. Don't know what other members think. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, I am aware of the OP approach to dates, which is one reason I posed the question here, and I hope a few other editors will also offer their views. I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion of these lists which, especially for years after about 1930, tend to consist mainly of unreferenced trivia about American pop music. Most of them are headed with "globalize" banners, but that is only the tip of the iceberg. I have recently taken the occasional action to redress these imbalances (if you take a look at the 1951 events list, you will see what I am talking about), but it is not so much an uphill battle as a sisyphean/quixotic enterprise.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Karadar.com

The libretti on this site are now subscription-only e.g.[5]. This means there are now a lot of dead links in opera articles. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussions

As they've had no activity for over a month. I've archived the discussions on lists of singers/roles in articles and "stubness" (short articles which nevertheless have all the information available). But these are topics we may wish to return to in the new year. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Copied from Tales of Hoffmann discography, for comment

For some reason the table omits Dr Miracle, who has as much to sing as a couple of the other list roles. Secondly with 8 (or 9) characters, I think a layout with roles and conductor on the left axis and recordings (year/label) across the top would look better, though I am not really able to make such a design and I know is not standard for these articles. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The present table may not be ideal but I do think having the year on the left in the standard way makes sense. The standard Opera Project format is given here. I'm sure it could be updated but that would have to be discussed with the project. If you want to add Dr Miracle that's fine by me, but perhaps the column should be widened to accommodate two names per line. Also we need to fill in all those missing names. --Kleinzach 23:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked at this list, but I have been making considerable adjustments to many of these lists in order that they conform to the Standard Opera Project format, as noted by

Kleinzach above. These adjustments have primarily focused on adjusting the width of the roles column and incorporating the label number into the Label column. From a readability pov, I believe they looks a lot better.

Please look at the table again, and you will see that I have increased the width of the roles column so that, at the very least, each singer has a complete line to him/herself making it more visually attractive.
Now, that only addresses one issue and this opera has the distinction of having one or more singers in several leading roles, as the characters' names change. While I don't particularly like the addition of capital letters next to names, it is probably better than the repeats of names (see towards the bottom for an examples.)
However, I don't agree that a revision of the format as proposed by editor Cg2p0B0u8m is needed right now. Maybe, with this many roles to include, two per line might be a good compromise. I'm open to that, and can help set it up if needed. The col. width of the roles is now set at 200px, so it would have to be widended and the HTML "break" codes removed to allow two per line. Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I've Been Bold and edited the first bit of the Discography, as follows:

  • added Miracle and the servants to the list of roles at the top - treating the four servants as one, which they almost always are
  • added Miracle and the servants to the list of singers and
  • trialled this arrangement with the 1948 recording.

Comments welcome. I'll do the rest and add another recording or two later today unless there are strenuous objections. --GuillaumeTell 17:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There have been a few solutions proposed for how this list of recordings should be presented.
Please review the discussion on Talk:The_Tales_of_Hoffmann_discography and add any comments in favour of one or the other. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_91&oldid=1190133582"