User:Robertgreer/SandboxW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Ondine (Ashton)

See also: Talk:Undine (ballet), Talk:Ondine (Perrot), and Talk:Undine (novella)

WikiProject Dance / Ballet
	Dance Portal Robertgreer/SandboxW is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ballet.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 rename as Ondine (Ashton ballet) 1.1 Ondine (Ashton) 1.2 merge Henze into Ashton 2 Renaming 3 Undine 4 My two cents worth... 4.1 Wiki. is dynamic 5 Another 3rd O 6 Ondine Ballet 7 Ashton / Henze / Ondine / Undine 7.1 Ondine/Undine: a possible compromise? 7.2 done 7.3 to merge or not to merge 7.4 Ondine / Undine / Ashton / Henze

[edit] rename as Ondine (Ashton ballet)

Is there any objection to renaming this as "Ondine (Ashton ballet)" in keeping with the naming of most other ballet articles -- and in acknowledgement of the fact that there is one and only one Ashton in the world of dance. Robert Greer 04:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ondine (Ashton)

Is there any objection to renaming this as "Ondine (Ashton)"? Robert Greer 17:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] merge Henze into Ashton

I would suggest merging Ondine (Henze) into Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) (and renaming the latter Ondine (Ashton) as "Sir Frederick Ashton ballet" is multiply redundant) on the grounds (1) that the Ashton article is the longer of the two and that Ashton is a bigger cheese in the world of ballet than Henze in music (this is not to disparage Henze, but Ashton is a real big shot.) — Robert Greer 01:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest merging Ondine (Sir Frederick Ashton ballet) into Ondine (Henze) because Henze is one of the key figures in modern music who can only become more prominent with time. Ashton was just a choreographer and his influence (though notable in his lifetime) is now fading into obscurity. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree (1) that Ashton "is now fading into obscurity" and would suggest that (2) while Henze is a key figure it is strictly speculation to say that he "can only become more prominent with time." It is also biased to say that "Ashton was just a choreographer" (emphasis added); what would you think if someone wrote, "Henze was just a composer"? Which is — most emphatically — not my opinion. I doubt that we can agree on this and suggest that two seperate articles be retained, though this one should be renamed more simply Ondine (Ashton). — Robert Greer 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The merged article should defiantly be called Ondine (Henze) since ballets are written by composer not choreographers. I don’t know of any other ballet on Wikipedia which is suffixed by the name of the choreographer. If Ondine is a very notable work in Sir Frederick Ashton’s career than a short section could be added to his own page as well. --S.dedalus (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There are MANY ballets on WikiPedia which are suffixed with the choreographers' name; these can be found on disambiguation pages. Dance is in this sense viewed by some a secondary art form; and oddly it is the choreographers, George Balanchine for example, who have shown the greatest respect for composers who do not get the respect they deserve from those who love music but not ballet. I love both, but that said, there are many composers whose music is performed more often at the ballet than in the concert hall, so I have to ask which is the tail and which the dog? What I do not understand is the outright hostility ("defiantly" ... "a short section" [emphasis added]) some people express to the ballet and why they cannot tolerate independent articles for dance works when they are only too happy to have as many articles as there are compositions for every composer who ever put ink on staff paper. — Robert Greer

P.S. I did not write the Ondine ballet article but am standing to its defense (1) on principle and (2) on the grounds that the person who did seems to've put in more effort into it than the person who wrote the Ondine (Henze) article. — Robert Greer 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a big ballet buff myself, but the buffs I know always refer to this as an Ashton ballet, not a Henze ballet. In short, I'd merge to Ondine (Ashton). Still, as long as we disambiguate and redirect and all that, it's no big deal where we put it. All of the reasonable alternate choices should be redirects.

Ashton is, I think, far more famous and respected in the UK than elsewhere (certainly than in the US). I doubt that his reputation there will fade any time soon (though I could find you some Russians and New Yorkers who think it should). - Jmabel | Talk 19:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Ondine (ballet) currently refers to Ondine, au la Naiad, the ballet by Jules Perrot. Undine (the disambiguation page) has a long list of links with both O and U spellings. Ballet is a dance form for which ballet music is composed. Notwithstanding that ballets may be choreographed to existing music it would seen the dance form in this case appears to have priority. Merge Ondine (Henze) here and rename as Ondine (Ashton ballet), it contains a redundancy, but it makes sense alongside Ondine (ballet). Paul foord (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming

I think the article should be merged under the title Ondine (Ashton ballet). The ballet is predominantly attributed to Ashton, in the same way that nearly all ballets are identified by choreographer, not composer. The only other article that is particularly relevant to Ondine would be the one about the original Russian production. Despite the personal opinion of Jmabel, Ashton's ballets are still amongs the most performed in the world and are either in production or licensed by the Royal Opera House to almost every major ballet company in the world, including the Bolshoi. His influence is still very strong outside of the UK, and he is viewed by the ballet community as one of the greatest choreographers of the 20th Century so if his work is now a little outdated, it doesn't mean he deserves any less recognition. Crazy-dancing (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undine

I disagree with both schools of thought that are either pro-Henze or pro-Ashton. I think that both these articles should be merged with that of Undine (novella) which describes the original story. Both ballets are just interpretations of this novella. All three articles are relatively short and by joining them together a really good article could be written on the evolution of the story and its subsequent interpretations with sections on the ballets and opera - similarly to that of articles on Cinderella etc. Information on the story is more detailed in this article than in the article on the novella already. Does anyone agree with me? --Cazo3788 (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Undine (disambiguation), does not appear to help the situation. Paul foord (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Paul foord, I have already. That is why I suggest a general merging of articles under the Undine (novella) header which describes the original work and its subsequent adaptations. --Cazo3788 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The ballet appears to be notable in its own right Oppose Paul foord (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents worth...

It is more a general consideration about ballet choreographers and composers. Music: I think that if the score is played as a stand-alone composition/concert in well-known theaters, then one can argue that the score has a merit in itself, and therefore deserves a page (compare to many of the Tchaikovsky's or Stravinsky's ballet pieces - they were originally composed for a ballet, but then they were played independently of a ballet). But if nobody plays it outside of the ballet world, then it should be mentioned together with the ballet. As for the suggestion of merging them under the novel article, I can think of many other cases where there is a novel (la fille mal gardee...) but the ballet or music deserves its own independent article. Wikipedia is a dynamic system, so if the situation changes in 2-5 years, somebody else will update it. We should reflect what is happening now. Choreography: many people can argue about the importance of contemporary choreographers' ballets, some have merits, some have not. But Ashton was knighted for his merits in dance and his ballets, one can argue, are important pieces of art. Whether they deserve a separate page, I don't know because I am not so familiar with Ashton's work, although having a separate article might be beneficial if there is a lot to say and this would make Ashton page too crowded. Gioland71 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki. is dynamic

Which is an argument for suspending judgement about Henze, whose rep. may well be rising; Ashton, whose rep. is much greater in the UK than the US (or former USSR); and Fouqué for that matter. Five, fifteen, fifty years from now they may individually or severally be cock of the walk or nearly forgotten (consider the case of Johann Sebastian Bach.)

If someone is willing and able to write an article about the music, the novella or the ballet, more power to them! That said, the Henze and Fouqué would both benefit from expansion, as would the Lortzing opera article of the same title; and somebody could write articles from the ground up on ETA Hoffmann's Undine, Giraudoux' Ondine and Debussy's Undine. If and when this controversy is resovled, I will take it upon myself to expand — modestly — the Ashton ballet article. — Robert Greer 15:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reputation also depends on the circle: Ashton is very well known among ballet students, teachers and balletomanes; of course the average Joe (anywhere on the globe, even in the UK) hasn't heard of him at all. And I'd like to argue that Bach is still better known than Henze ;-) — Gioland71 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: this is not a comment on Henze's merits, but more on his fame: consider that he lives in Italy and I haven't heard of him in my 30 years in the country ... — Gioland71 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Point well taken! Sadly, the average American Joe hasn't heard of Petipa — or JSB for that matter — and this is not effete intellectual snobbery, "for the times they are a-changin'." I'd just add that Wiki's wonderful hyperlink capability is another reason to maintain seperate articles for the various and sundry Ondine / Undine topics and also not integrate them into their authors' respective articles; consider how many Bach / Mozart / Stravinsky compositions there are and how long the articles would be if combined! Or Petipa / Balanchine / Bournonville ballets! Would anyone seriously consider combining the individual articles on Shakespeare's plays into one? — Robert Greer 18:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another 3rd O

I was also asked to have a look. I'm not an expert, but it seems fairly clear that the ballet & its choreography is at present the predominant work of interest. There would be no reason to not have another article dealing primarily with the music, and the fiction, with the appropriate cross references. For the way we usually handle it, see A Midsummer Night's Dream (disambiguation). Only minor works can be combined, and that primarily when there is nobody to write them in more detail. The idea of combining all the ballets of a notable choreographer is acceptable as a start, if nobody is prepared yet to elaborate--and it is in my opinion a good idea to work on such articles first to get broad coverage. But it is well established that every one of the significant works of a major writer or other creative artist is notable. We can, and do, have articles on ever one of Shakespeare's sonnets, and ever Child ballad. Not all of them are developed yet, but the less time disputing how to write articles, the more we could write and expand. DGG (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ondine Ballet

Ondine is most definitely a Sir Frederick Ashton Ballet. Of course Henze wrote the music. All Balletomanes know that without a choreographer there is no ballet, merely music without any dance. Ashton's works are performed regularly in many ballet companies. Ondine should be listed as an Ashton ballet only. Ashton was more than a choreographer. Ashton was one of the giants of twentieth century ballet. Ondine's lead role was created for Dame Margot Fonteyn. Other great dancers have performed the role since. Sir Antony Dowell revived the ballet for Royal Ballet. It is a gem which should be seen more widely. Finneganw 01:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ashton / Henze / Ondine / Undine

[edit] Ondine/Undine: a possible compromise?

Crossposted from User Talk:Robertgreer

Hi. I didn't notice it before, but the title of the ballet in question is actually Undine (the German spelling) rather than Ondine. I've written to the person who changed the name to ask why he did it, but so far had no reply, however all the Henze sources give Undine. Accordingly I intend to change the name back. However this means that it would be possible to call it Undine (ballet) rather than Undine (Henze). Would it be acceptable to you to have a merger under the title Undine (ballet)? --Kleinzach (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] done

Agreed; I have done the deed! This seems to me to be a way of eating our cake and having it too (I've had similar problems with some New York City Ballet entries, not least because George Balanchine, born in St. Petersburg, chose to spell the composer's name as Tschaikovsky rather than the more conventional Tchaikovsky and who am I to argue with Mr. B.) At least the Undine disambiguation page is under the original German spelling; Ondine redirects to it. — Robert Greer

PS The problem is even messier than either you or I could ever have anticipated! I did four quick Google searches and found:

• • • Results ... about 16,400 for ondine "henze" -undine
    • Results ... about 12,200 for undine "henze" -ondine
  • and:
    • Results ... about 20,700 for ondine "ashton" -undine
    • Results ... about 18,400 for undine "ashton" -ondine

Google "hits" do not represent scholarship or correct usage, but they do show Everyman's thoughts on the matter, and the above results don't show such strong preference for Ondine over Undine to sway me one way or the other. I did four more searches which however did:

• • • Results ... about 254,000 for ondine ballet -undine
    • Results ... about  25,400 for undine ballet -ondine
  • and:
    • Results ... about 17,600 for ondine "royal ballet" -undine
    • Results ... about     590 for undine "royal ballet" -ondine

One gets similar results for Ondine vs. Undine with Perrot and Pugni instead of Ashton and Henze. — Robert Greer 20:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Obviously it's very simple to switch the first vowel so that's what people have merrily been doing. I don't think it's a big problem with the redirects and disambig page. Presumably the Google results were just for English? Are you now going to merge Ondine (Ashton) into Undine (ballet)? I think that would be best. There can be distinct sections for the music and the choreography. — Kleinzach (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] to merge or not to merge

The Google searches were for all languages; I'd considered doing the searches first for English and then for German and might still do so, but I am not going to merge the articles.

(1) 90 to 97% of the ballet usage spells it Ondine; so, right or wrong, the ballet is spelled with an O.

(2) 55% of Google hits to Henze misspell the title with an O and this excluding Ashton's name!

(3) You were the only person who wanted the Ashton article merged into the Henze.

(4) Almost everybody else wanted Henze merged into Ashton.

There was one Wikipedian who wanted both Ashton and Henze merged into the article about the novella.

(5) Last but not least, Wiki. administrator DGG made a determination that seperate articles are to be maintained.

Robert Greer (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I thought we were moving in a positive direction on this. Didn't you object to the article being called Ondine/Undine (Henze)? Now it is called Undine (ballet) I thought we could combine the information intelligently under a neutral label. If not then let's abandon this discussion. Better to pursue the matter on the actual pages. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC) PS I think you are under a misapprehension over the role of admin. They don't determine this kind of thing. DGG was just giving his opinion.--Kleinzach (talk) 12:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ondine / Undine / Ashton / Henze

I believe that you are mistaken about Wiki. administrators.

One of their duties is to resolve controversies, and we have a basic problem here, to wit, how to spell the title.

Google would indicate that the ballet is better known than the music and that the ballet title is overwhelmingly spelled Ondine.

Further that even the music title is more often (mis)spelled Ondine than correctly as Undine.

You were one of two persons who wanted to subordinate Ondine (Ashton) to Undine (Henze); every other writer except one wanted to subordinate Undine (Henze) to Ondine (Ashton).

[That one exception wanted to subordinate both Undine (Henze) and Ondine (Ashton) to Undine (novella).]

If the Henze and Ashton article were to be merged it would have to be under the name Ondine (ballet).

Because that is what an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians want, and neither you nor I have the right to impede the will of the majority.

But that's not going to happen, because:

Wiki. administrator DGG made a determination that seperate articles are to be maintained!

Robert Greer (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think doing it as two separate articles is silly, but I always seem to be more of a "lumper" than is the consensus of Wikipedia. Seems to me this will lead either to a lot of redundancy or to arbitrary splitting. Henze wrote this at Ashton's request. Has anyone significant other than Ashton ever re-choreographed the piece to Henze's score? - Jmabel | Talk 17:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that two articles for one work is silly. The Henze page is now called Undine (ballet). I think both articles should be merged under that name. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. I've just realized that Robert Greer has ported his talk page conversation over here. Hmm. A sledgehammer to crack a nut?--Kleinzach (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree Undine (ballet) should incorporate both the music and the choreography - have been editing the music section and it does appear weird to talk about the ballet without any description of it in the article, especially as Ashton's choreography depends on it. --Cazo3788 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand Kleinzach's objection to my moving a conversation he began — uninvited — on my talk page and which he then insisted on continuing here, on this, the article page, instead when the facts of the matter did not support his views and I did not agree with his every whim. — Robert Greer (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)