Talk:L'Orfeo

/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lpastorella.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article expansion

The idea is to bring this article to the standard of Monteverdi's other two operas, Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria and L'incoronazione di Poppea. Editors are welcome to participate or make suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is wikilinking the years (three of them) in the lead really necessary or even useful? --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even begun to look at the lead. That will be revised after the rest of the article is expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A correction to one assertion: the Metropolitan Opera presented L'Orfeo in concert on April 14, 1912 for the opera's United States premiere with Hermann Weil in the title role, Rita Fornia as Euridice, Maria Duchène as La Musica/the Messenger/Prosperina, Basil Ruysdael as Caronte, Herbert Witherspoon as Plutone, Anna Case as Nymph/Shepherd, and Josef Pasternack conducting. The NYCO production was the first staged performance in NYC and not the New York premiere. You may want to mention Carl Orff's adaptation of the work which was presented at the National Theatre Mannheim on 17 April 1925. La Monnaie presented the work first in 1960 and then put together a new production devised by Trisha Brown which premiered on May 13, 1998. That production was then seen at Théâtre des Champs-Élysées (April 1999), the Barbican Center (June 1999), the Brooklyn Academy of Music (June 1999), the Aix-en-Provence Festival (July 1999), La Monnaie (April-May 2002), and the Aix-en-Provence Festival (2007). Some other productions of note would be the Teatro Comunale di Bologna (1910), Opéra de Monte-Carlo (1910), Teatro Costanzi (1912), Teatro di San Carlo (1920), Teatro dell'Opera di Roma (1934), La Scala (1935 and 1978), Teatro Lirico Giuseppe Verdi (1943), Maggio Musicale Fiorentino (1949. 1957, and 1984) Aix-en-Provence Festival (1965), the Salzburg Festival (1971 and 1990), the San Francisco Opera (1972, with Gwyneth Jones), the Zurich Opera House (1978, directed by Jean-Pierre Ponnelle), the De Nederlandse Opera (1997, recording released), the Houston Grand Opera (1999, in association with Opera Atelier who has staged the work many times since 1987), Chicago Opera Theater (2000), Teatro Colón (2001), the Berlin State Opera (2004, directed by Barrie Kosky), the Opern- und Schauspielhaus Frankfurt (2005), Opera North (2006, repeated at the Glimmerglass Opera in 2007), and the Teatro Real (2008). Some mention of Baroque opera company productions like Boston Baroque (2001), Les Arts Florissants (2008) would also be appropriate. Personally, I think enough major opera houses have revived the work to completely remove the assertion made at the end. I would say that the opera is not presented often though. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A further comment, the performance history at www.amadeusonline.net indicates a performance of the opera at the Louvre in 1647 which is 4 years after the supposed last 17th century performance. An 1832 revival in Paris was also mentioned.4meter4 (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. The problem with these performance sections is keeping them within bounds; Whenham's book lists around 100 performances between 1904 and 1986, and there have been many more since. Clearly only a few can be mentioned in the article. However, I have added a sentence about the performances of Giovanni Orefice's edition either side of WW1 in Italy and America, and have specifically referred to the 1912 concert performance at the Met. The 1925 Orff performance will be briefly mentioned in the as yet unwritten "Editions" section, as will a few other important landmark performances, notably Harnoncourt's. I have added a sentence about Les Arts Florissants and their 2008–10 Monteverdi trilogy. I have amended my comment about the relative lack of interest shown by major opera houses, and relegated it to a footnote. I have also added a note about the 1647 Paris performance (I am not completely convinced that this took place, since none of the authorities mention it, so I have worded carefully). I don't think that these performance sections should grow further; if vital information comes along, it will have to be included at the expense of other material. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Much improved, thanks. I added a couple that stood out to me. For the 400th anniversary, don't you think the Opera North/Glimmerglass Opera production deserves mention. It certainly got a ton more press than any of the other productions that year and to my mind is the stand out. I could care less about any of the others in 2007. Here are some Opera Today articles:http://www.operatoday.com/content/2007/02/opera_north_bre.php and http://www.operatoday.com/content/2007/08/monteverdis_lor.php4meter4 (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't include Glimmerglass because already the performances section looks topheavy with Brit and UK productions. Perhaps mention it instead of the San Francisco production? Cases can be made for adding lots of other performance details to the section, but as I said earlier, we have to keep its size within bounds; it presently looks a lot longer than it should. Please, please, no more additions. I will try and trim the prose in my final editing pass. Brianboulton (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've exchanged SF for Glimmerglass and reduced the Brit emphasis soewhat. The balance looks better now, let's keep it that way. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks better. I personally see no harm in mentioning a few more productions, but I will defer to your sensibilities. You've done excellent work here as usual. I really enjoy reading your articles.4meter4 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni Gualberto Magli

I just created a short article on Giovanni Gualberto Magli. I found one discrepancy among sources. The concise Oxford dictionary of music By Michael Kennedy, Joyce Bourne Kennedy indicates that he definitely sang both La Musica and Proserpine (also possibly Hope). Angels and monsters: male and female sopranos in the story of opera, 1600-1900 By Richard Somerset-Ward indicates he sang all three. Any reason why other sources do not indicate Proserpine as a definite?4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fenlon agrees Prologue and Proserpina, the possible third either La Messagiera or Speranza. I've clarified this. I'm nominating for peer review, in the hope of getting some general feedback. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I updated the Magli article accordingly.4meter4 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Voice type" in table

A tiny issue... Am I right in presuming that the only indications to "voice types" are the clefs that the various roles are performed in? Or is there an extant title page saying "Orfeo: tenor" etc? IMO I think this should be made clear. After all, much "alto"-clef music of this era can be taken by a high light "tenors" in the modern sense; similarly the "tenor"-clef role of Orfeo himself has been sun enough times by modern-day baritones to blur this issue. (I would prefer some term that includes the word "range" to "voice type", as the latter is mostly an area that has developed since the days of this opera's creation.) I think its worth clearing this up now, before well-meaning IPs start making their own little edits. Congrats on an enjoyable page, yrs almost-instinct 13:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point. I believe that in the original score the voice types were ambiguous, rather like the instrumentation. The present allocation of voices is probably more a 20th century thing. However, I will look into this and make sure that the table is accurately annotated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an additional collum with clefs and range like in Monteverdi's musical theatre By Tim Carter. pg 97 would be appropriate. I think the voice types should remain, but with an additional explanatory footnote.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes ... a solution that gives (a) Monteverdi's very basic indications (clefs, ranges) (b) what we can surmise about the original performers (eg that the sopranos were castrati) (c) the various modern practices (eg does La Musica get sung by both counter-tenors and sopranos these days?) would be ideal almost-instinct 08:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a danger here of overcomplicating the issue. For example, Carter's table gives La Musica's clef and range details as "C1: f'–d" (a'–d")", with similar entries for each part. This sort of technical detail, which requires a lot of explanation, is in my view beyond the needs of a general encyclopedia article. A general note should explain that Monteverdi's score indicates voice type by clefs, and that modern performances have allocated these to SATB singers, with occasional variations, e.g. the use of counter-tenors in alto or soprano parts. I have never, incidentally, heard the part of La Musica performed by a counter-tenor, but I dare say it has happened. Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree about danger of over-complication. As for modern variants, I've no idea if its remotely common, but there is this DVD with counter-tenor David Cordier as La Musica: [1] While looking for that, saw this one with baritone Simon Keenlyside in the lead [2] almost-instinct 11:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, several baritones have sung it - Gerard Souzay is mentioned in the article. Rasi, who created the part, had a range that evidently incorporated baritone. Perhaps Domingo will now give it a try? Brianboulton (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Peering over your Sources and Citations

Just casting a peer's eye over your sources:

• Further reading "Neef, Sigrid (ed.) (2000). Opera: Composers, Works, Performers (English edition). " is (English edition) really part of the title?

• No, you are right. Fixed.

• In external links can "Damian H. Zanette (February 2007)" be fully cited? (It may not be able to be)

• Zanette has something useful to say about clefs, so I've cited him in the "Roles" section. From a quick google search he appears to be a scholar of some significance.

• Bibliography references from Claudio Monteverdi: Orfeo. are a little confusing, particularly "Sternfeld, F.W.; Whenham, John (ed.) (1986)." Is Whenham always the editor? Is he also an author of Sternfeld and Whenham? But he isn't listed as the editor of Whenham in same work? This may be cultural because for chapters I'm used to Author (Year) "Chapter" Editor (ed.) Work Place: Publisher.

• Whenham is the overall editor, and also a contributor. The cite book template isn't designed for such complexities. However, I have taken your advice and reformatted.

• Bibliography: Source diversity including age diversity looks good. Presses all look good. Source specificity looks good, finding a scholarly collection of chapters was a great idea.
• Footnotes (all futher comments are footnotes): "Oxford Music Online." is surely a containing work, does it deserve Oxford Music Online. Italics in your style?

• WP:MOS reserves italics for print sources. Oxford Music Online is by definition not a printed source

• Footnotes work authors with multiple works inconsistent, Fenlon, "The Mantuan Orfeo" (Author Short title) but yet Carter (2002) (Author Year).

• The date in Carter (2002) is to distinguish it from Carter OMO. The two Fenlon entries have to be distinguished by title since they are both 1986. Likewise the two Fortune entries.

• "Carter (2000)" repeatedly given in footnotes, couldn't locate in bibliography or previous citation in notes?

• That is my mistake. All 2000s should be 2002 (and now are).

• Hugill, Robert (24 April 2006). ; Music and Vision appears to be an online magazine, Italics?

• Per Oxford Music Online, if it's not printed it doesn't get italics

• "Uwe Schneider's Letters from Berlin 2004". ; operajaponica appears to not be a magazine or a publication, just a publisher, non italics?

• This citation was added by someone else. I have now fully formatted it.

• "Monteverdi's Orfeo" (BBC) has a radio station (Radio 3), a last broadcast date, and an episode number in a continuing programme series. Consider adding at least the broadcast station?

• Details added.

• ""Royal Opera House Collections"" Broken link :( They must have changed their internal website methods.

• I don't think it's broken. It goes to a page that confirms that there are no recorded ROH performances of L'Orfeo. I will investigate whether there is a better way by which this same information can be conveyed.

• Looking good! Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for visiting this page, and for your very helpful suggestions which have largely been implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I have transferred these notes to the current Peer review (Link at the top of this page). Brianboulton (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! More fool I for not having clicked that link. Will reply there. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Libretto or text?

I notice that the lead refers to the text of the opera, rather than the libretto. I guess this is an attempt to use a plain word, rather than a fancy one. I would normally agree with that sort of thing but:

1. I'm not sure the word text will be that readily understood anyway.
2. The word libretto is used later in the article, without wikilinking. Looking at that section, it might be easier to add the wikilink to the lead. (I do think a link is necessary)

Yaris678 (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, which I have acted on. Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Spurious "Performance history" additions

I have now twice reverted an anonymous IP [3] who persists in adding an extra table and separate section called Performance History. Not only is this redundant to the section Reception and performance history, it is spectacularly wrong (and unreferenced), and apparently based on extrapolations from recordings and confusions with Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice not on actual performances. For example, Hermann Weil sang Orfeo in the Met performance not Caruso. Pertile didn't debut at La Scala until 1916, yet is listed in the table as singing in the Scala "premiere" of 1907. Not to mention Giuseppe Verdi listed as conducting the La Scala "premiere" of 1896! This is a featured article, changes like this should not be made without discussion on the talk page first. More importantly, changes which are unreferenced and entirely wrong should not be made at all. Voceditenore (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Redirect now a dab

I have replaced the redirect from Orfeo to this page with a disambiguation page. There are way more than just the two items mentioned in the hatnote, which should be revised. I did put this page as the first option.

If anyone feels strongly that it should still be a redirect, please use Talk:Orfeo for a discussion. Choor monster (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox?

How about something like this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

done --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Instrumentation

There should be an actual list of the instruments used in this opera. Lasaris (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

But who knows. Monteverdi didn't write one. What he composed needs to be "translated" to a version that can be performed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm referring to the instruments commonly used in performances then and now. You make a fair point though. --Lasaris (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The text you added asserts a list of instruments used in the original performance and gives a link to the IMSLP page. I looked at the 1609 score and couldn't see any instrumentation. Which edition are you referring to? And what is the source for "instruments commonly used in performances then and now"? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The 1609 print's list is already there as an image, and contradicts some of what's cited to Glover in the first paragraph, making for confusion: where does the 2nd recorder come in, for example? I count 38 instruments instead of 41 claimed in the lede, where "not orchestrated as such[??]" could be improved, I think: "The orchestration is not specified in as much detail as a modern score: in the Renaissance tradition the composer's general instructions would be adapted to circumstances."

Other details in the 1609 print there to be found, sometimes continuing from the top of an even page to the facing odd page:

• Act I
  • Toccata tutti; "voleando sonar le trombe" [if trumpets are wished?]
  • "Vieni imeno" tutti gli stromenti
  • "Lasciati i monti" 5 V da braccio, 3 chitt. 2 gravicemb. 1 arpa dopp. 1 cb de viola 1 flautino
  • Rit a 5 (unspec)
  • Sinf. a 5 (unspec)
• Act II
  • Rit. "Mira" 1 clavicembalo, 2 chitt. 2 vlni fr. 'di denttro' i.e. offstage
  • "In questo prato" 2 vlni ordinarij da bracchio, 1 basso da br., 1 cemb. 2 chitt.; with single cemb. & chitt accompanying voices.
• "Vi ricorda" 5 vlni 'di dentro' 1 cb, 2 cemb. 3 chitt.

That only takes me to page 31, before the detailed continuo assignments for Orfeo & Messaggera and the underworld sackbutts. Sparafucil (talk) 05:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

2022 Opera North performance

So I discovered an incorrect attribution in the article on Gluck's Orfeo ed Euridice and removed it. Finding it was more properly relevant to this article on Monteverdi's work (and judging it to be of encyclopedic interest), I dutifully added it here. The information was promptly reverted on a whim by User:Tim riley. I have no passionate interest in my own edits here but would appreciate any third-party views on User:Tim riley's objection that "this one rather odd production should be singled out for mention". I believe the paragraph is worthy of restoration. Bjenks (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I rather object to being accused of removing this addition "on a whim". It was not a whim but carefully considered. Some of us keep an eye on the articles brought through FAC by the late and much missed Brian Boulton, and my edit summary remains valid, I think: "Unclear why this one rather odd production should be singled out for mention". What do other editors think? Tim riley talk 16:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please accept my humble apology for use of that sensitive word. I notice that Brian Boulton once reflected that "While [Monteverdi] worked extensively in the tradition of earlier Renaissance polyphony, he undertook great developments in form and melody, and began to employ the basso continuo technique, distinctive of the Baroque. He defended his sometimes novel techniques as elements of a seconda pratica, contrasting with the more orthodox earlier style which he termed the prima pratica." So, not a composer to reject constructve innovation... And, granting that your edit was not on a whim but "carefully considered", I decided to follow suit and quickly found that "this one rather odd production" was staged for seven weeks in four cities and was the winner of the prestigious Outstanding Achievement in Opera Award in the 2022 Critics’ Circle Music Awards. The award recognises the unique value of the art-form and the ambition and achievement of opera companies in Britain. The judges, who are drawn from across the arts, commended Orpheus as being “one of the most remarkable operatic events in living memory” with its innovative melding of the music of Monteverdi’s 1607 opera Orfeo with brand new music by composer and virtuoso sitar player Jasdeep Singh Degun resulting in a production that was at once “fresh and new, warm-hearted, tragic and triumphant.” Therefore I intend to continue researching this odd production and will contribute further to this discussion in due course. Bjenks (talk) 06:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think I have to agree with wanting to know why this one production should be highlighted above all others? - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Bjenks, please WP:AGF. When an experienced and expert editor like User:Tim riley reverts an edit, it is because, in their experience and judgment, the edit does not improve the article. If the person making the first edit disagrees with this decision, then, per WP:BRD, opening a discussion on the Talk page is the right way to proceed, so we are in the right place here. The guidelines at issue are WP:PROPORTION and WP:RECENT. The first guideline states:

An article should ... strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events ... may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events....

Here we have a mature work that has received numerous productions, especially in the past century. There have been far too many productions to describe every one. It is our task, as editors, to craft a proportionate discussion of the production history that describes the most important productions and gives a general overview of the whole production history of the opera that will give our readers the best understanding of the work without making them wade through a long, list of "this production had a reduced orchestration; this production had some cross-gender casting; this production was set in outer space, etc. The usual criteria for selecting the most important productions include the following:

• How many performances of the production were there?
• Was it revived with the same direction multiple times and play in many major opera houses?
• Did it have a strikingly starry cast?
• Was it the subject of intense, international critical or scholarly scrutiny or celebration?
• Did it earn an Olivier Award or other major recognition?
• Was it recorded and/or filmed, and did the recording and/or film become a big seller and/or earn a Grammy Award?

Here we have a production by a regional opera company. I am not familiar with the production, so I will leave it for you and Tim to discuss the criteria that I have outlined to see if this production was so important that it should be singled out for discussion in the article. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As I made clear at the outset of this discussion, my sole contribution was to transfer the brief edit of an unknown editor from one (wrong) context to another which I judged more appropriate. The reversion by "an experienced and expert editor" was made almost immediately and, in my opinion (see above), without any diligent research into the specific matter. I reject your imputation that I have acted otherwise than in good faith. Bjenks (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, naturally. If you find enough evidence to prove that the one revival is more notable than all the others and should be singled out from them, by all means add it. Otherwise you should in my view add a representative summary of the notable revivals or else leave the text as it is. Tim riley talk 09:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The revivals reported in the subsection are hardly justified as more notable than the one I have accidentally fallen into discussing, which has received multiple important awards including the prestigious The Critics' Circle Award for Outstanding Achievement in Opera (2022). Against this, what is said for the 6 May 2010 BBC broadcast of the opera from La Scala, or any of the other reported revivals? No, sorry, I intend to simply restore the disputed content with adequate justification. Bjenks (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

You need to establish a consensus here for that. See WP:BRD Tim riley talk 11:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a parochial tour is of sufficient significance for inclusion, per WP:WEIGHT, as much as anything else, but others may differ in that view. I will say, Bjenks, that threatening to edit war isn't the most positive way to approach this, and combined with the rather personalised comments you've been making, there is something of an unfortunate WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to this rather small matter. Is there any chance you, indeed everyone, could focus entirely on the arguments of whether this should be included or not, without the personalisation, snark and aggressive approach? - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

If my foreshadowed intention is construed as "threatening to edit war", I'll none of it and herewith withdraw, with apologies. Bjenks (talk) 01:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking for myself I accept your apologies. Tim riley talk 11:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)