| Revision as of 07:11, 15 April 2011 editKleinzach (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,640 edits archive← Previous edit |
Revision as of 07:13, 15 April 2011 edit undoKleinzach (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers84,640 edits archiveNext edit → |
| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
|
{{WikiProject France|class=B |importance=low }} |
|
{{WikiProject France|class=B |importance=low }} |
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
==Different versions of the opera== |
|
|
The original entry confused the French (5 act) and Italian (4 and 5 act) versions. I have tried to clarify this. |
|
|
] 18:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have substituted the synposis of the Milan version (with permission from Opera japonica) for the confusing 'Plot' taken from ''The Opera Goer's Complete Guide'' by Leo Melitz, 1921 version - a four act version starting with the Fontainebleu scene. |
|
|
] 18:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't not quite understand this part in Act 2: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Don Carlo has received a note, apparently from Elisabeth, suggesting a midnight meeting in the Queen's gardens. <span style="color: RED">However it is with Eboli not Elisabeth.</span> She is delighted when he declares his love, but horrified when she realizes that it is not for her but for the Queen. Rodrigo enters and Eboli threatens them: <span style="color: RED">she</span> will tell the King that Elisabeth and Don Carlo are lovers. Rodrigo tells Don Carlo to entrust him with any sensitive political documents in his possession. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 13:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK. Here is a paraphrase: |
|
|
|
|
|
:Don Carlo has received a letter which he thinks is from Elisabeth. However it is actually from Eboli. As requested, he goes to a meeting in the Queen's gardens at midnight. He cannot see clearly in the dark and thinks he is meeting Elisabeth. in fact it is Eboli. At first Eboli is delighted when Don Carlo declares his love, but then she is horrified when she realizes that he is love with Elisabeth and not her. |
|
|
|
|
|
:When Rodrigo enters, Eboli threatens Don Carlo and Rodrigo. She will tell the King that Don Carlo and Elisabeth are lovers. |
|
|
|
|
|
:(That's from memory but I think it is accurate). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hope that is clear. ] 14:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OH!thank you:)!! |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Don Carlos and Don Carlo treated as two distinct operas== |
|
|
|
|
|
The article has just been re-edited to refer to two different operas by Verdi, a French one and an Italian one. The introduction now reads: |
|
|
|
|
|
''Don Carlos and Don Carlo are two closely related late 19th-century operas by Giuseppe Verdi, in French and Italian respectively.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think this is helpful. There are actually three versions not two. All the authorities regard it as a single work. In many ways the most significant difference is between the four act and the five act versions, not between the French and Italian. If we treat all operas that have been given in different languages, with the participation (more or less) of their creators, as different entities, we will have a considerable proliferation of pages that can only serve to confuse the reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
I welcome any comments about this problem. I recognize that different versions of operas are sometimes difficult to handle but treating them as separate works is surely not the way to go! - ] 17:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have to agree with Kleinzach on this. Two of the major Verdi reference works, Julian Budden's ''The Operas of Verdi'', Vol.3, and Mary Jane Phillips-Matz's ''Verdi: A Biography'' refer to it as one opera, the former having only one chapter, "Don Carlos", devoted to the various versions, while the latter's "Index of Verdi's Works" refers to "Don Carlos (Don Carlo)" with page references to such things as "revision and production", etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Therefore, we certainly cannot accept that it is two different operas requiring two diffrerent articles. I'll make some revisions to the present article's opening paragraph prior to giving the entire article some working over. <br>] 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Sorry, my two concerns were |
|
|
:::# trying to cram such a big Dab onto the article page (and i gather my fix for that was OK), and |
|
|
:::# two initial 'graphs that each sounded like they belonged on a separate page (and i gather i did something problematic in my effort to unify those two 'graphs, since i agree there should be one article. |
|
|
::: It sounds to me as if you-all are bothered essentially by "operas" in the plural, which i thot was just restating what i had found there. If we agreed that the situation is multiple versions of one opera, i assume you agree that the opening statement of the article has to start by focusing on what the versions have in common, not on distinguishing the versions. My language was chosen as a minumum change in that direction. I guess i was not bold enuf (preserving the previous editor's focus too well) and kept too much of the separation. If the problem is a few words, i think changing them will be more productive than trying to negotiate them in advance. (But i hope we can discuss, if i'm missing something, and you-all liked it better before i waded into it, and you want to go back in the direction of what i started from rather than a little further in the direction i did.)<br>--]•] 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
::::Thanks for your reply. No doubt we can sort this out. As I said in my note to you the original version was not ideal and I'm sure we can improve on it - keeping it as one article and one work. Best <br>- ] 21:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I just waded in boldly with my scissors (snich-snach) & paste, and said roughly what i probably would have if i hadn't taken the previous organization of the article too seriously. But the description (preserved, i think, from what i first found) makes the "three versions" sound a lot like 4. Probably needs better wording about "reinstated". Is the real situation that the 4-act 3rd version was deprecated (as we would say here, tho we shouldn't in the article!) in favor of the 5-act 2nd one? (The current Met production is the 5-act Italian; long evening, but i was glad for the Fontainebleu.) <br>--]•] 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
::::: Are we talking about published versions, or simply those performed under the composer's supervision? In the course of discussing these versions, would that distinction be worthwhile, or a lk to an article with a section on, uh, operagraphic practice re versions?<br>--]•] 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
::At the end of his chapter, "Don Carlos", Budden actually refers to 5 versions of the opera. However, based on what I wrote earlier, it is clear that there are at least 4 versions, 3 of which were certainly produced with Verdi's approval: (i) Original French 5 Act; (ii) Italian 5 act, unrevised, translated from French to Italian; and (iii) Revised, Italian 4 Act. Budden says that no documentation exists which shows Verdi approving of (iv) Italian 5 Act in 1868, but states that it is unlikely that he would allow Ricordi to publish anything without his approval. |
|
|
|
|
|
::Now, it is also clear that many '''performances''' ignored much of what Verdi wrote; some cut out the 1st Act, some the ballet, etc.... |
|
|
|
|
|
::I think that what we have here is a reasonably concise account of the process of ''Don Carlos'' becoming ''Don Carlo''. ] 07:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'd say that Don Carlos and Don Carlo are one opera with different versions. Yes, there are language differences among some of the versions, but they are essentially reworkings of the same opera. --]] 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think we really have a problem here, do we? ] did us a favour by getting rid of all that gunge at the top and creating a sensible dab page, and he agrees that there should be one article, not two. May I modestly (well, not all that modestly - I spent a lot of time on it) recommend something like the approach which I adopted for ] for distinguishing the versions: a concise account of the differences between successive (legitimate) versions, and a table with dates and role creators. A similar approach would also work well for other operas revised under (approximately) the same title by their composers, such as ] and ]. And for those revised by others if their work was left incomplete, such as ] and ], (though '''not''' those like ] or ] or other completed operas that were interfered with after their authors' deaths). --] 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:P.S. I hope that, by "the process of ''Don Carlos'' becoming ''Don Carlo''", ] doesn't mean that ''Don Carlo'' is a more legitimate version than ''Don Carlos''. I'd argue that it is less legitimate and requires less attention - Verdi engaged in practical alterations for particular productions, and didn't reject his original version in any way. --] 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I don't think that anything I have written implies one version is better or more legitimate than the other. But there was a process there, with Verdi's revisions changing the original ''Don Carlos'' quite considerably and transforming it into the ''Don Carlo'' we mostly see presented today (the present MET 5-Act Italian version is probably an exception).. San Francisco presented a facinating 5-Act French version a few years ago which was quite a revelation for me. I had "grown up" on the Visconti-directed 4-Act Italian version which I saw at Covent Garden many times from 1960 onwards. ] 16:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm delighted this has all had a 'happy outcome'. We should thank ] for finding the problem, ] for fixing it and ] for his useful advice about how to deal with these tricky multi-version operas. Best - ] 19:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Self correction: in going back to my 1963 ROH and later programmes, I realize that I had seen the Visconti-directed ''''five act''' Italian version, not the 4 act one. In addition, it is interesting that, while the Italian version is generally called ''Don Carlo'', ROH chose to call it ''Don Carlos'' in the programme. ] 00:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The Met 3 act (extended scenes unabridged version)== |
|
|
I do not like edit warring so I took the liberty by publishing the Don Carlo, The Met (3 act - unabridged version) synopsis/DVD/intro from the DVD that I have. Refer |
|
|
|
|
|
Verdi never did or revised to 3 acts but The Met did. The storyline is actually the same with Verdi's version but the act was done in three while the scenes were extended. But since it was produced this way, '''The Met 1983 Don Carlo''' is known as "Opera in 3 act (Unabridged Version)". |
|
|
|
|
|
The recording history section in the article MUST reflect the “history” of how the actual play took place. We can’t “label” the Met 1983 Don Carlo as 4 or 5 act because it has never be done that way but yes, we can put that in "remarks" column. People who read the intro of Don Carlo/Carlos should be able to know that the "changes" was done by the opera house but not the composer. That is also the reason why I and The Met had to put “Unabridged version” – the term is self explanatory. |
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully this would end the "nonsense" remark from those who are not sure. I do not wish to see anymore editing with remarks “nonsense” to me, save it to The MET! Anyway, I am open for discussion; it’s just that I believe our fact about how it was presented by any opera houses must remain and we can't change as we wish. Thanks. - ] 03:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
:So, when an opera company chooses to present LA BOHEME with ony one intermission, that it is sufficient to call the opera a 2-acter? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Any company can present an opera any way it likes; that isn't the same as the version as written by the composer. (Comment apparently left by 67.164.148.66 ) |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
] has changed it and I agree with the way he/she changed it. |
|
|
To ], I have no issue if anybody edited my writings but it seriously pisses me off when, not only you didn't know that the version I wrote referred to "The Met", you also spice up with the opening statement "nonsense". Any contributors will be angry with you if this is the way you "edited" others writings. It is common for people to edit others writings in here, I did too, but never I wrote "nonsense" as the remark for it. - ] 06:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Onstage ''banda'' == |
|
|
See Carter (1999), pp. 147-149 for the use of saxhorns in the onstage ''banda'' in Verdi's ''Don Carlos'' in 1867. |
|
|
* {{cite book |title=Brass Scholarship in Review |last=Carter |first=Stewart |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=1999 |publisher=Pendragon Press |location=Paris |isbn=9781576471050 |page= |pages=147-149 |url=http://books.google.ie/books?id=qR04bU5NVZIC}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==Political themes== |
|
|
What about the political and national themes of the opera? This opera has a historical significance that the article doesn't mention. Does someone want to fill this in, please? ] (]) 08:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
|
