Misplaced Pages

Talk:Fidelio: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:34, 22 February 2016 editMichael Bednarek (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users84,908 edits Premiere: It's complicated. Those details are not correct for the version we hear now. Infoboxes are not suitable to convey complicated facts.← Previous edit Revision as of 04:33, 22 February 2016 edit undoOpus33 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,855 edits Premiere: More well-meant advice for GerdaNext edit →
Line 54: Line 54:
], when would you say the premiere of Fidelio was? I went by the category which says 1805, when the first version ''Leonore'' was performed at the ], on a libretto by Sonnleithner, - that's how I read the article, --] (]) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC) ], when would you say the premiere of Fidelio was? I went by the category which says 1805, when the first version ''Leonore'' was performed at the ], on a libretto by Sonnleithner, - that's how I read the article, --] (]) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
:It's complicated. Those details are not correct for the version we hear now. Infoboxes are not suitable to convey complicated facts. -- ] (]) 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC) :It's complicated. Those details are not correct for the version we hear now. Infoboxes are not suitable to convey complicated facts. -- ] (]) 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
::Exactly. Gerda, the infobox forces the author to say things like you just said, namely "I went by X". If X represents an arbitrary choice, then ''don't'' "go by X"! You should ''refrain'' from making such arbitrary choices; it leads to trouble. Be a scholar! Tolerate nuance! Let appropriate description in the article text give the reader accurate information. I know you can do it if you try. Sincerely, ] (]) 04:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:33, 22 February 2016

WikiProject iconOpera B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Misplaced Pages 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Overtures

Perhaps someone cleverer than I could mention that the alterations made to the beginning opera required overtures in different keys (from C to E if I recall correctly). Constan69 (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Connection to Eyes Wide Shut

This opera gets mentioned in the motion picture "Eyes Wide Shut" as the password for the high class New York City sex party that Tom Cruise attends midway through the film. As this was the last major work of Stanley Kubrick, a simple sentence regarding this in the article should do no harm. However, it was removed using a very uncivil edit summary. The proper thing would have been to discuss it here instead of calling it "total rubbish" (see WP:CIV). Is there a legitimate reason for keeping this out? -OberRanks (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, might not need to worry about this after all since its listed on the disambig page. -OberRanks (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no comment about the edit summary, however I have to agree with Viva-Verdi that Eyes Wide Shut shouldnt be placed in this opera's "see also" section. I do not see any connection whatsoever except for some small part of it - Jay (talk) 05:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, "Fidelio" has many things in common with Eyes Wide Shut. There are some essays out on the web but they're far from sources. The fact that the main character is saved by Leonore from a "chorus of judges" is one of them. That's very similar to when Bill is pulled out of the fire by that masked woman in the ballroom at the party. I think all that needs to be done here is to find a valid source from a school or a novelist or something that points out these similarities because "Fidelio" being included in the film isn't just an accident, especially since the opera shares the same themes of love and fidelity. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
... It's a non-issue now, but no, those points would only belong on the EWS article - the movie has nothing to do with Beethoven's opera and the link is thin at best.HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Yes, no connection and no longer really an issue since its already on the disambig page. I didnt realize that at first. -OberRanks (talk) 05:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Does someone have a problem with Klemperer's 1962 recording?

The entry for Klemperer's 1962 recording was deleted here and again here . Bizarre. --Kleinzach 06:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Now another recording has been deleted, --Kleinzach 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Leonore's voice-type

Leonore is a role for soprano OR MEZZO. For instance, Christa Ludwig, Gabriela Beňačková, Gabriele Schnaut--extremely successful Leonores, all mezzos.

Simon Mayr's version (the 4th!)

There's also an opera by Simon Mayr, titled L'amor coniugale, which is the forth operas with this subject matter. Should we add this too? 83.79.133.15 (talk)

In my opinion, none of these three operas should be mentioned in the lead section. If they are to be mentioned, it should be in the Background section, and even then only if there is a proven link with Beethoven (like the one by Paer). Regards. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception

A section on the reception of the opera would, of course, be highly desirable, but the current section is not about the "reception" at all, it's about a specific emblematic use of the opera in the very limited period of the late 1940s. Section titles should reflect the actual content and meaning of the section they label. A proper reception section would cover critical reactions to the opera on its first performance, views on the music, libretto and dramatic potential, plus later critical views about the strengths and weaknesses of the work, its changing reputation and so on. The current section is not about that at all. Even if a full reception section were created, I would still think the 1944-8 section would not be best placed as a subsection of it, since it's really about something quite different - the affirmation of "great" German culture and the concept of liberation from oppression, as a counter to Nazi visions of Germany. If a less "clumsy", but accurate, title can be thought of, fine. But having a totally misleading one is not. Paul B (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources modified on Fidelio

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just attempted to maintain the sources on Fidelio. I managed to add archive links to 1 source, out of the total 1 I modified, whiling tagging 0 as dead.

Please take a moment to review my changes to verify that the change is accurate and correct. If it isn't, please modify it accordingly and if necessary tag that source with {{cbignore}} to keep Cyberbot from modifying it any further. Alternatively, you can also add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page's sources altogether. Let other users know that you have reviewed my edit by leaving a comment on this post.

Below, I have included a list of modifications I've made:


Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 15:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Premiere

Opus33, when would you say the premiere of Fidelio was? I went by the category which says 1805, when the first version Leonore was performed at the Theater an der Wien, on a libretto by Sonnleithner, - that's how I read the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It's complicated. Those details are not correct for the version we hear now. Infoboxes are not suitable to convey complicated facts. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. Gerda, the infobox forces the author to say things like you just said, namely "I went by X". If X represents an arbitrary choice, then don't "go by X"! You should refrain from making such arbitrary choices; it leads to trouble. Be a scholar! Tolerate nuance! Let appropriate description in the article text give the reader accurate information. I know you can do it if you try. Sincerely, Opus33 (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Categories: