Talk:Comic opera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of the Opera WikiProject, a collaboration to develop Wikipedia articles on operas and opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project talk page is a place to discuss issues, identify areas of neglect and exchange ideas. New members are very welcome!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, organized to complete and improve the Gilbert and Sullivan related articles on Wikipedia. You can participate by editing the article attached to this page or by visiting the project page, to join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale for the G&S Project.
You may comment here on the rating or to explain the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Rewrote article 2 Comments on Previous Version 3 Genre of Opera? 4 Rock operas? 5 Is comic opera == opera buffa? 6 Thank you 7 Treating comic opera as a genre is controversial! 8 Comic Opera Guild site

[edit] Rewrote article

I essentially rewrote the entry. The original was fragmentary and contained a few errors.Jeffmatt 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Previous Version

This article still requires a lot of work. It is more of a point-of-view than an Encyclopedia article. The problem begins with the leading sentence. Instead of explaining comic opera, it tells us that the term "causes inevitable confusion."

Many concepts can be confusing if not properly explained. The point of an Encyclopedia is to explain them, not to warn us that they are confusing. If there is indeed rampant confusion, it's better to state a source of the confusion, rather than merely opining that confusion exists.

The inclusion of the "Music of Italy" template is perplexing, as comic opera is not a solely, or even predominantly, an Italian art form (though, like many musical forms, it may have begun there).

Several of the points lack the required neutrality, or are unverifiable. For example, the second paragraph begins, "Care should be taken...." Who is advising us to take care? What source said that?

Similarly, "Further confusion can be avoided...," "A fair case can be made...," and "The proliferation of terms is unfortunate...." Is there any source for these comments? Marc Shepherd 15:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the article again, stressing comic opera as an operatic form that developed and evolved in many countries and styles, instead of just 18th-century Italian opera buffa.

Many of the sub-headings would profit from further elaboration, and I've said nothing at all about zarzuela, except in the introduction. Marc Shepherd 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the way that you've rewritten the article, Marc. Nice job. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Marc Shepherd 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genre of Opera?

Is the word "genre" of opera useful? Is the word genre a misnomer? Also, "opera seria" is mentioned as the "alternative" to light opera, but the other alternative is obviously "grand" opera. Can we clarify this? Also, should we refer to the modern "rock opera"? This is really an interesting development, in which some modern musicals have been through-composed or have "scenas", recits, etc. and are, I think "light operas", except that the music has a rock beat and the orchestration may include some electronic instruments (or not). --Ssilvers 23:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Historically, comic opera developed as a counter-balance to "opera seria," so I think this part of the comment is accurate – "grand opera" having developed later, and separately.

Rock opera might well deserve an article as its own, being something entirely different. I don't feel qualified to write it. Marc Shepherd 02:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It has an article, though the article needs a lot of work. But I don't see why rock operas are not light operas (at least as much as "Showboat" is) and shouldn't have more coverage here. I also think the article needs more clarification about the differences between "comic opera" and musicals and a clearer description of how the musical has evolved from comic opera. --Ssilvers 22:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rock operas?

The current edit says:

Some recent American and British musicals are considered rock operas and, where they treat a comic theme, could be considered comic operas.

I have never heard any such works referred to as "comic operas" in any sense, and I'm not even sure which "recent American and British musicals" are meant by the comment. Marc Shepherd 18:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now modified the discussion to try to remove the controversial part of the statement and give more context. --Ssilvers 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the question in my mind is whether "rock opera" has anything whatsoever to do with "comic opera." Marc Shepherd 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the many attempts to clarify the article's final sentence, I still get the feeling that the allusion to "rock opera" is coming from out of nowhere, and has no demonstrable relationship to "comic opera," except in the most attenuated sense. It would be better to find some citable source for the connection (I'll be surprised if one is found), rather than just rewording the same sentence over & over again. If the connection belongs anywhere, it's probably on the "opera" page, but Herr Kleinzach would probably delete it! Marc Shepherd 19:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that, as currently written, the last paragraph is fine and gives reasonable context for the reference to "rock opera". If I come across a citable reference, I'll let you know. But let's hear from someone other than Marc and me. Any opinions? --Ssilvers 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is comic opera == opera buffa?

Attention: (2nd paragraph) "Comic opera, or opera buffa, ..."

But... (Opera buffa) "Opera buffa (a form of comic opera), ..."

Since I don't know a word about opera I cannot fix it, since I don't know which of the two is true. --euyyn 13:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've seen this is a discussion already started here. Seems like the correct one is Opera buffa's statement. --euyyn 14:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Comic opera is an umbrella genre that has come to encompass a number of subsidiary forms, including (but not limited to) opera buffa. The opera buffa article is certainly correct when it says that "opera buffa is a form of comic opera." The comic opera article is also correct when it says that comic opera, or opera buffa, developed in 18th-century Italy as an alternative to opera seria. "Opera buffa" was the term by which the form was known at the time. However, I have reworded this to make the relationship clearer.

I agree with the consensus on the opera buffa talk page that the two articles should not be merged. The opera buffa article stands well on its own. If all of the comic opera sub-genres were merged into one humoungous article, it would be unwieldly.

On the other hand, I disagree with the rather absurd statement on the opera buffa talk page that...

opera buffa is a genre but comic opera is merely the qualification of opera by an adjective. (We can substitute long, tragic, boring or whatever for comic.)

Comic opera is a long-recognized type of opera. Books have been written on it. Music encyclopedias and dictionaries have entries for it. Many composers have self-described their works as "comic operas." No composer has described his work as a "long opera" or a "boring opera." (There have been tragic operas, but in such cases I agree it was a mere adjective.) Marc Shepherd 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the word "first" in the 2nd paragraph to try to clarify that, rather than the two terms being synonymous, the first kind of comic opera was opera buffa. --Ssilvers 19:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thanks to those who have made the necessary changes in the original. I was waiting for some help. I am responsible for not clearing up the points that I claimed were confusing. Thank you for fixing some of that. Jeffmatt 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries, Jeff. Marc Shepherd did all the heavy lifting. Perhaps you would like to weigh in on the current debate over at the opera talk page regarding whether rock opera is a legitimate "genre" of opera. Some people who oppose the idea are working very hard to confuse the issues.

I just added a summary of Zarzuela, which was the last piece that we were missing. Regards, Ssilvers 17:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treating comic opera as a genre is controversial!

This article begins: Comic opera, or light opera, is a genre of opera denoting a sung dramatic work . . . IMO this is incorrect. Encyclopedias do list comic opera and it's reasonable to have an article on it here, but it's important to be objective about what the term means.

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary of Opera says:

comic opera. A general name for an operatic work in which the prevailing mood is one of comedy. Under this broad definition come works from the tradition of opera buffa, opera-comique, operetta, musical comedy, ballad opera, and Singspiel.

What it does not say is that all works from these genres are comic operas or that there is any kind of equivalence. Some works are far from comic. By listing authentic genres (in their own right) as sub-genres of comic opera, we run the risk of confusing the form of the opera with the mood or subject matter.

There is also another problem with this article - it duplicates information in the articles on opera genres. This is something we always try to avoid on Wikipedia. Articles should be linked together, but content should be kept separate. - Kleinzach 22:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Other than the use of the word "genre," the Oxford definition is pretty close to what the article now says. Now, in a brief survey of sources available to me – and the Oxford dictionary is not one of them – there is quite a bit of imprecision in what is labeled a "genre." Some writers will freely use "genre," "form," "kind," "type," "style," and so forth. For all of the thirteen genres listed by Wikipedia's "Opera Genres" template, is there any source that lists each and every one of them – and no others – with a definition beginning "{xxx} is a genre of opera that...."?

If genre indeed denotes form, rather than mood, some of the existing articles are problematic. For instance, the article for Dramma giocoso begins:

Dramma giocoso (Italian: 'comical drama'; plural: drammi giocosi) is the name of a genre of comic operas with its origins in the mid-18th century. A dramma giocoso often has a sentimental or pathetic plot bordering on tragedy, rather than the traditional lighthearted comic plots, and it is thus situated midway between the opera seria and opera buffa.

This, clearly, is describing a mood or subject-matter, not a form. The present Opéra comique article says that it is a style, not a genre or form, of opera. I need hardly add that "Savoy Opera," another of the genres in the present list, principally denotes works that appeared at one particular theatre. Many works that are indistinguishable, as far as their form was concerned, appeared at other theatres and were not called Savoy Operas.

So I would question whether it is indeed an established convention that "genre" refers only to form.

Many, many, many Wikipedia articles provide brief introductions to their subjects, while providing links to articles with further detail about the same subject. See biology, music, England, Ludwig van Beethoven, or for that matter, opera. Marc Shepherd 11:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Definitions of genre? Here are some from the net: A category of literary forms (novel, lyric poem, epic, for example), A type or category of music (eg, sonata, opera, oratorio, art song, gospel, suite, jazz, madrigal, march, work song, lullaby, barbershop, Dixieland).

There's a basic distinction between categories of form and subject matter. If we confuse the two then we confuse the reader. For example the present article perpetuates misunderstandings about the relationship of Opera comique (false friend) and Singspiel to Comic opera etc etc.

I can point out other problems - all of them stemming from the same mistaken premise - but time presses!

I am not against there being an article on comic opera or against 'brief introductions' but in this case it is largely duplication. It's important to remember that Wikipedia articles belong to everybody. If you take the attitude that Opera buffa was started by somebody called Rgamble (or Zarzuela by Olivier or whoever) so you are not going to contribute to it and are going to do your own thing instead, well, that's against the spirit of Wikipedia.

Nevertheless my main concern is not about duplication. It is about accuracy (as explained above). - 13:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll address the accuracy issue, since I agree that the duplication is easily resolved once we decide what we are talking about.

I would have no objection whatsoever to rewording the topic sentence to say, "Comic opera, or light opera, denotes a sung dramatic work of a light or comic nature, usually with a happy ending, and often employing spoken dialogue interspersed among musical numbers." This would completely bypass the g-word altogether.

However, I would observe that the list of forms now listed in Wikipedia's "opera genres" template is really not very coherent. If there's a good explanation for which kinds of opera have made that list, and which have been excluded, I can't see it. If there were clear criteria evident in that list, I'd have a little easier time understanding why the use of "genre" in the "comic opera" article is objectionable to anyone.

In general, my observation is that some people like to define opera inclusively, and others prefer definitions that keep out the types they disapprove of. Whichever position you take, you've got plenty of company. Because it is controversial, I would incline to list as a "genre" every arguably relevant variety. I haven't found any widely accepted categorization, and any attempt at it usually gives rise to obvious counter-examples. Marc Shepherd 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

On your first point about rewording to avoid using the word genre, this would obviously be a step in the right direction, however it seems strange to draw attention so prominently to spoken dialogue ('often employing spoken dialogue interspersed . . .'). Some comic operas have it, some don't, but then so what?

The list of opera genres in the template was based on existing articles (not categories). Nevertheless it is not an unreasonable list. You don't explain your view that it is 'totally incoherent' so I am merely puzzled. You write If there is a rational explanation for which kinds of opera have made that list, and which have been excluded, I am unable to fathom it. Nice-sounding rhetoric, but you fail to say what you think should or shouldn't have been included or excluded!

I am not the author of any of the genre articles so I have no special interest in defending them. Some of them are quite poor, but then opera genres are difficult subjects to write about. You need good historical references etc.

According to one list of opera genres that we looked at there were 1,505 of them. Composers often chose interesting and unusual sounding ways of describing their works. (Grove gives these at the start of each article instead of just referring to 'operas'.) So we have the job of deciding which ones really describe groups of operas with a similar style, and which are merely fanciful. (There is another problem as well - whole genres of opera are often no longer performed)

The main Grove article of opera refers to 76 'sub-genres and related genres'. (Comic opera is not one of them, by the way). Looking through them I wonder how many are worth including. Azione teatrale? Favola in musica? (I know one of these.) Masque? (Perhaps - there is a Wiki article - but is it opera?) Literaturoper? Pasticcio? (Maybe, though I've never seen one performed.) Pastorale-Hérorique? A lot of them are exotic - the French liked very precise categories!

On your last point, you will find a 'widely accepted categorization' in Grove - not on one page of course, but they do cover all genres, both major and minor, in meticulous detail. If you want to know the relationship between Opera buffa, opéra bouffe and opéra bouffon - that is the place to look.

If you are keen to make a contribution to this subject, I suggest you pick one genre which hasn't been covered properly - for example Tragédies en musique (aka Tragédies lyriques) and do a thoroughgoing scholarly article on it. How about that? - Kleinzach 02:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded the topic sentence along the lines you suggest. I agree that the presence of dialogue is not the sine qua non of comic opera, so have removed that part of the statement.

I haven't seen the list of 1,505 opera genres, but I'm sure many of them have very few exemplars, and simply wouldn't be notable enough to justify separate articles.

I thought I indicated above why the WP list of opera genres didn't make sense to me, Dramma giocoso seems to indicate mood, not form. Savoy opera indicates a theatre. I didn't choose the list, so it's not my place to explain it. I'm just saying that I can't really see why that particular set of genres – and not others that also have Wikipedia articles – were included. Marc Shepherd 13:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the first sentence to make it non-controversial. (This at least is a start).

Dramma giocoso is a specific, well-defined genre. It was developed out of opera buffa during the second half of the 18th century, starting with Goldoni, and involved mixing in serious sections/roles with comedy. There are examples by Galuppi, Piccinni and Haydn, but the only famous one is Don Giovanni. The article could certainly be improved but it exists, hence its inclusion.

Savoy opera was decided as the title of the G&S genre after a discussion with G&S contributors (of which I am not one!). Have you looked at the page? It's defined as follows:

The Savoy Operas are a series of comic operas or operettas written by Gilbert and Sullivan. Strictly speaking, the term refers only to those whose first run or part thereof occurred at the Savoy Theatre in London (those from Patience onwards); in practice, the term is used more generally to refer to all the operas written by librettist W. S. Gilbert and composer Arthur Sullivan.

This seems reasonable enough. (For some reason Savoy opera is preferred to Savoy operetta. I don't remember why.) Once again, this page was included because it was there.

Now your final point:

I'm just saying that I can't really see why that particular set of genres – and not others that also have Wikipedia articles – were included.

I have explained the reasons for inclusion - I trust satisfactorily - can you now tell me which specific articles covering opera genres were omitted? (After all there is a possibility that you have seen ones that I haven't!) - Kleinzach 14:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the reason for "Savoy Opera," rather than "Savoy Operetta," is simply an historical one. The series has pretty much always been known as "Savoy Opera," and to call them anything else would be to coin a new term. (There's probably someone out there who has tried to introduce the term "Savoy Operetta," but it certainly never caught on.)

My question about the "opera genres" is simply, of all the articles named "______ opera," on what basis have we determined which ones are genres, and which are not? Although I didn't mind rewording the topic sentence of the present article to avoid controversy, the current set of "genres" remains a motley assortment. Marc Shepherd 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your question falls in the invidious category that might be called I ask the question - you do the leg work. Do you want me to make a list of every article that has the word opera in it (irrespective of categorization) and then give you reasons why 'Italian Opera' or whatever has never been considered by anyone, anywhere, as a genre? Is this reasonable?

On the contrary, I have asked you a clear and direct question: can you tell me which specific articles covering opera genres have been omitted? (If you can point to an article that has been overlooked we can add it.)

Up to now I've assumed you are asking about opera genres in good faith, that you have studied the subject (referred to books etc.), that you are not just picking my brains. I hope I am correct. Now answer my original question, please. - Kleinzach 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry....the question is in good faith, and yes, I have checked a number of reference books. There is a good deal of loose terminology. As I noted upthread, the words "genre," "form," "kind," "type," "style," etc., tend to be used almost interchangeably. This lack of precision may be unfortunate, but this is the situation.

I am not asking you to do the legwork, but Wikipedia's {{opera genres}} template was clearly created by yourself, so you must certainly know the rationale that went into it. Somehow, you concluded that certain things are "in," and certain things are "out." Since this thread is getting long, I'll put a note on that page. Marc Shepherd 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have ignored my question (which is) can you tell me which specific articles covering opera genres have been omitted? If you are not willing to reply then you should withdraw your remarks (above). Making vague criticisms and refusing to substantiate them is hardly reasonable. It's a waste of time.

To answer your question - as I have done on every occasion -: I absolutely did not conclude that anything was out - with the exception of Rock opera which was rejected by consensus. Nor would I have made any such decision without a consensus. - Kleinzach 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied on Template talk:Opera genres. Marc Shepherd 20:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by that page, you may have misunderstood the question. It was not about categories, which exist as something like tags in Wikipedia, but about articles. So let me ask you again: which articles have been omitted? - Kleinzach 21:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comic Opera Guild site

The link to the Comic Opera Guild site is provided because of its extensive information about light opera, light opera festivals, etc., not because it is also the site for a touring company. Please leave it in the article. -- Ssilvers 05:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)