Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera/Archive 99

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 97Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101→Archive 105
Archives Table of Contents


WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is very useful. I have replaced the old WolterBot links of the Project page and Portal:Opera with this. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Operas set in Australia

For general info. I've recently created Category:Operas set in Australia. I've populated it as far as I can, but I'm sure there must be other candidates. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Guillaume Tell

OK here's a teaser. This opera is listed under William Tell (opera). It is very rarely (if ever) performed in English - as the article says, it is done either in French or sometimes Italian. Of course it may be referred to in conversation in Englsh as 'William Tell', but in 90%+ of case that would be in respect of the William Tell Overture (which incdentally should perhaps have a lower case o). So should not the main article in WP be 'Guilaume Tell'? Over to its eponym, perhaps.--Smerus (talk) 07:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In conversation I've never heard it called by anything other the English name. Admittedly this isn't an everyday occurence ... ;-) almost-instinct 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think it's best left as is. If the article was retitled Guillaume Tell, it would be out of synch with the William Tell Overture (agree that this should be William Tell overture), and I think that Guillaume Tell overture would be an annoyance to most people. I'm not sure that the opera not having been performed much (if ever) in English is relevant - I'd guess that over the years it has generally been performed more times in English-speaking countries as Guglielmo Tell than Guillaume Tell, rather like Don Carlo or Medea (opera). --GuillaumeTell 18:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed the overture. By the way, inspecting the article on the overture has given rise to this, on which people may wish to comment.--Smerus (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Ingeborg Reichelt

Soprano Ingeborg Reichelt was married to a man who recently died and has an article. Imo it is not good to write additional things about him in her article. I removed it once, it returned. How should we handle this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. I added two references to confirm the date of their marriage and who he was. As far as I can see no reliable sources call him an "active Holocaust denier", although they do confirm that as a lawyer, he defended several of them. It sounds like someone who attempted to get that description into the article about her husband Hajo Herrmann and couldn't, so used her article as a "coatrack". In any case, the article is about her, and what her husband got up to doesn't belong in there unless she actively assisted him in his law practice or his speaking engagememts for the German People's Union and National Democratic Party of Germany. There's a link to his article and that's more than sufficient. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
PS. I must say, I find the German Wikipedia very strange, it insists on Flagged revisions but then allows biographies of living persons to be virtually unreferenced, or extremely poorly referenced. Voceditenore (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not just a problem of German Wikipedia. A cursory look at Dutch Wikipedia (nl.wiki) reveals that the majority of the articles there are very poorly referenced, e.g. the article on Bernard Haitink (a Dutch conductor at that) is completely unreferenced, while the corresponding article in English WP (which text-wise is roughtly the same size) has 26 references. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Christa Mayer

I came across Christa Mayer in relation to Rudi Spring and consider "her" not a stub anymore, please check. Btw, String was one more de-bio without refs. I wonder if some of the red links to people should be inter-wiki in his case. I did that for an orchestra and an ensemble. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re inter-wiki linking: I check incoming links to a red link, e.g. links to Thomas Moser suggest to create a red link because there's a chance the article will get written, but no links for Münchener Kammerorchester suggest to use de:Münchener Kammerorchester. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. - All of what I said about the singer also applies to Salome Kammer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

December OoM and CoM

I'm inclined to hold the November ones over for December, minus the ones which have already been worked on because [a] December 1st is tomorrow and [b] so many people are otherwise engaged during the holidays. However, if anyone has any other suggestions beefore this evening, speak up. Voceditenore (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

PS: The 4 Gluck operas which were the November OoMs haven't really been worked on apart from Guillaume Tell's sterling work in sorting out the discography for Iphigénie en Tauride, so there's plenty more to do there. Voceditenore (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have been reading up on Gluck but I got a bit overwhelmed by all the information I acquired. I've also been sidetracked into a mini-project of my own which should be finished in the next few weeks. With any luck I'll get back to Gluck in the Christmas break. So I agree we should hold the OoM and CoM over. --Folantin (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Instrumentation

I am currently having a discussion at Talk:Lulu (opera) about the placing (not the content) of an Instrumentation section in opera articles. I am aware that this probably is not very important for pre-romantic opera (instrumentation being rather standard in the Classical and Baroque era), but I am convinced this has a certain level of importance, certainly for 20th/21st century operas. Since the guidelines offer no solution, it might be useful to reach consensus on this matter to avoid future discussions. --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't often add instrumentation but when I do I put it after the roles table, following the example of The Viking Opera Guide. It groups together the forces you need to perform the opera, e.g. two sopranos, two tenors etc,. followed by strings, two flutes, a harp and so on. --Folantin (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
That was also the reasoning behind my choice of placing (grouping together the vocal and instrumental forces), but on the Talk:Lulu (opera) page consensus seems to go in the direction of a less prominent placing at the bottom of the article. Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

L'Italiana in Algeri

I am almost certain that this move to capitalised italiana is not correct. Anybody ? Signed Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (forgot to log-in before posting this)

No it is not correct. This was not an uncontroversial move. User:Awien, who requested the move,[1] was already reverted once for changing the capitalization in the article [2] and had been directed to WikiProject Opera Guidelines on orginal language titles. With no discussion whatsoever, he put in a request for a page move two hours later as "uncontroversial". The administrator there took his word for it and moved it. This has now caused problems with the Template:Rossini operas, producing redirects. "L' italiana" is not capitalized in Italian. The character's name is Isabella not Italiana. The definite article has nothing to do with it, despite the vagaries of the Italian Wikipedia. The "I" is not captitalized in the major reference books either, including Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians plus [3], [4], [5], [6] and the Fondazione Rossini's Centro Studi Rossiniani which produces critical editions of the scores. [7], [8]]. I'm going to ask Antandrus to change it back. Voceditenore (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes it is correct to capitalise L'Italiana. Both Italian usage and your project's own guideliines call for " . . . "sentence capitalization". That is, the title is capitalized as it would be in a sentence in that language . . .". Italian grammar call for the capitalisation of "nomi che indicano persone appartenenti a nazione, regione o città" (see full quotes on the article's talk page [9], where I have moved my contributions to the discussion as suggested). Awien (talk) 14:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Viking Opera Guide does not capitalise either. I've just dug out a copy of Corriere della sera from last year and they don't follow the rule: "Gli iraniani accusano l'Occidente", "gli arabi", "i palestinesi", "una irlandese" etc. etc. You can see this for yourself around the internet. --Folantin (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You can find examples of anything all around the internet, including both versions of the title of this opera. Even La Scala is not consistent. That does not alter the fact that Italian grammar as formulated by Italian grammarians should carry more weight than the practice of non-Italian music specialists. Awien (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
When a newspaper of note such as Corriere doesn't follow an alleged rule from an old grammar book and when we have several highly reliable sources not following the rule then doubts arise as to its validity. I've read several books in Italian and I don't remember ever coming across this system of spelling. --Folantin (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(Update) Today's issue of La stampa [10]: "gli albanesi e i bosniaci". --Folantin (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(Further) The first line of Italo Calvino's Il visconte dimezzato in I nostri antenati (Mondadori, 1991 edition): "C'era una guerra contro i turchi." --Folantin (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

But Italian WP does follow the rule, e.g. the Italiana article itself, [11], and yesterday's featured article [12]. It certainly is a rule much honoured in the breach, but applying it cannot be called a vagary unless someone can come up with a statement from an authoritative grammarian that capitalisation is not (or no longer) required for nomi che indicano persone appartenenti a nazione, regione o città. Otherwise, we can go on listing examples and counter-examples from the internet till we're blue in the face. Awien (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Italian Wikipedia entry is completely inconsistent. Under the title we have: "Tu mi dovresti trovar un'italiana." --Folantin (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Awien, it's policy at the opera project to follow the capitalization pracitices of major English language reference works. As clearly stated above, all major opera/music related reference works in the English language do not capitalize the i/I in italiana. With the inconsistancies in Italian print sources, there doesn't appear to be a reasonable arguement to divert from our policy in this instance.4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
(To Awien) Sorry, I've taken my examples from two of Italy's most prestigious newspapers and one of Italy's most prestigious publishing houses in a book by one of Italy's most prestigious post-war writers. Voceditenore has given examples from major musical reference works. None of them capitalise the "i". That may have been the rule at some time in the past but it isn't now. Case closed as far as I'm concerned. --Folantin (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.novecentoletterario.it/grammatica/maiuscole.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awien (talk • contribs)
[13] Page 105: Maioscole: "frequente ma non obbligatoria nei nomi degli abitanti di una città o di un stato." And a usage clearly not followed by the style guides of Italy's leading newspapers and its biggest publishing house. Moreover, as 4meter4 says, we follow the usage of Grove and other reliable sources as far as capitalisation of titles is concerned. There is no case for moving the article. --Folantin (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not want to interfere with this discussion earlier (although I started it) as my knowledge of the Italian language is very rudimentary, but I have noticed that the examples given by Awien are always in the plural (indicating a people, as in I Lombardi alla prima crociata, not a singular representative of a people). Just an observation from a person with no knowledge of linguistics whatsoever. Regards. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think this is the case. See the examples above: "gli albanesi", "i turchi" and so on. --Folantin (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Francesco! It was actually I who started it, by moving the article to where grammatically it should be ^_-
And it’s nice of you to try to find a way of reconciling the different positions (even though the problem isn’t singular vs. plural but noun vs. adjective).
Unfortunately, the positions can’t be reconciled. It’s the age-old conflict between the prescriptive grammarian (Novecento litterario linked above and I), whose philosophy is that when there is a productive and logical rule we should apply it, and the descriptive grammarian (the Minisci grammar linked above and Folantin) whose philosophy is that if (some) people are doing it, it’s OK to do it. As languages evolve, sometimes one side prevails and sometimes the other. Time will tell which way Italian resolves the current anarchy - but for the moment there's clearly not going to be consensus for moving this article (or Il Turco). Ciao, Awien (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really a distinction between old and new grammar books. If you look at the bottom of www.novecentoletterario.it suggested by Awien, there are quotes from various Italian grammar books. One of them notes that the modern tendency is to use lower case for nouns of nationality (Flora Francesco. Grammatica italiana. Cappelli Ed. Bologna, 1971), and another suggests that either is acceptable (Dardano Maurizio e Trifone Pietro. Grammatica italiana. Zanichelli. Bologna, 1995). Meanwhile both of these more recent books on Italian grammar for English speakers, written by Italians 2002, 1997 "prescribe" lower case for nationality nouns in Italian. This article on "Bare predicate nominals in Romance languages" (written by an Italian) likewise uses lower case for nationality nouns in one of his examples (see notes at bottom of p. 102). So I don't even think it's a case of "what is" vs "what should be". Anyhow, as there is no consensus for such a change, I'll put a link to this discussion on Talk:L'italiana in Algeri, since the bulk of the discussion seems to have taken place here. Voceditenore (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

January Opera of the Month

The Opera of the Month collaboration focuses on improving existing articles.

I'd like to sort out this one before the holidays encroach. Any suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is just off the top of my head. I've been thinking about operas that were revised by their composer, or which were unfinished when the composer died and were edited by others. I've spent a bit of time on Médée (Cherubini), War and Peace (Prokofiev) and Don Carlos, but every so often I come across The Tales of Hoffmann, Carmen, Boris Godunov (opera), Macbeth (opera), Jérusalem, Aroldo, Le comte Ory, Moise et Pharaon, Madama Butterfly and no doubt other operas that don't come immediately to mind, where the different versions/editions aren't explained very clearly, or, in some cases, at all. --GuillaumeTell 17:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to "have a go" at the Verdi operas, especially the last two whch could use some fleshing out. Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I think this is an excellent idea. Just the other day an irate "customer", complained at Talk:Mosè in Egitto that Moïse et Pharaon should have a separate article, which I tend to agree with. Also the relationship between Lucia di Lammermoor and Lucie de Lammermoor needs a lot more elaboration than the cursory treatment it currently gets [14], or even better its own article. Can we narrow GT's suggestions down to four for next month? We can than attack the others in a future OoM. Voceditenore (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that Boris Godunov (opera) can be excluded, though it could do with a bit of editing. --GuillaumeTell 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Update Using the above suggestions, I've gone ahead and filled in the January OoM template here. I'm off to Italy for a week or so with (blessedly) little or no computer access. Feel free to tweak if it seems appropriate. In the meantime Happy New Year to you all. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

January Composer of the Month

The Composer of the Month collaboration focuses on composers in the opera corpus whose works still lack articles.

Any suggestions? Voceditenore (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You've just prompted me to produce this entirely from Google; if you've printed sources that would help ... :-) almost-instinct 10:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Two possibilities to consider:

Women Composers (for the first two we have no articles on any of their operas)

"Orphaned" composers (These composers have no articles on any of their operas.)

– Voceditenore (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I started an article on Tutti in maschere (I may be the only person here who's seen it on stage) but got sidetracked, so I'd go for the orphans. On the distaff side, I've been meaning to add Eleanor Alberga's Letters of a Love Betrayed to the corpus. --GuillaumeTell 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Playbill, welcome to the Opera Project and to Wikipedia. I've taken the liberty of moving your comment here (the bottom of the section), as comments are normally placed in chronological order and tend to get lost if placed in the middle of earlier comments. Anyhow, on your suggestion, I've created a brief article on Ricardo Llorca which can be expanded from the material already listed in the sources. If anyone wants to create an article on his opera Las horas vacias, do have a go. It sounds interesting. For now though, I think we'll concentrate the January CoM on more established composers.
Since GuillaumeTell was the only one to express a preference (which is also mine), I've gone ahead and filled in the January CoM with the "orphaned composers". Voceditenore (talk) 16:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Naming of articles about operatic performers

I have a query about naming articles about operatic performers. Please could someone point out a guideline which sets out that full names rather than stage names are normally used for artists (with redirects). I have just had an article changed on this basis and would like to consult the format rules – either on Opera project, or generally in Wikipedia. Thank you. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have now been put in the direction of general guidance on this, which is via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Nicknames.2C_pen_names.2C_stage_names.2C_cognomens, and explains how to name articles where there is an accepted professional/stage name. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 12:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Iolanthe#Category:operas_with_a_mythological_setting

Take a look (if the subject is of interest!) --GuillaumeTell 19:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Creating" a role

Is it correct to say the the first performer of a role "creates" the role, or is the role created by the composer/librettist/original source author? For example, is it correct to say (as his article does) that Theodor Uppman created the role of Billy Budd, or did librettists Forster and Crozier, or did Melville? If the first performer "creates" the role, then is it correct to say that the role of Billy Budd has been created three times (once by whoever played the part in Ghedini's opera, once by Uppman, and once by whoever played the part in Coxe's play)? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how the term "create" is being used in this context. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In writing about operas, this is the normal way of expressing the fact that a singer was the first one to have sung a role in a particular opera. The character, Billy Budd, was created by Melville. But Theodor Uppman created the role of Billy Budd in Benjamin Britten's Billy Budd, while Renato Capecchi created the role in Ghedini's Billy Budd. It would not be normal to say the role had been created three times, because a role is unique to the specific opera in which it appears and is written for a specific voice type. I'm not sure whether this expression is used in theatre, because there the role consists solely of the words. In opera, the role is realised equally through the words and the music which the singer performs. In fact some would even say that the music is the primary means of realising the role. But that's a whole 'nother debate. ;-). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes we see things like Demelza Frangelini created the role in Milan and Monaco, while Dorabella Vanucci created it in Florence, Rome and Paris. It seems unnatural to think of a role being created more than once, but I suppose that if we can say that an opera has many premieres (e.g. the London premiere, the New York premiere, the Dry Gulch premiere ..., a different one for each city and country), then each of the main roles can be created every time. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 19:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A specific role in an opera can only be created once, IMO almost-instinct 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The example cited above is a very odd (and in my view, incorrect) use of the term. I'm curious to know where it was used. The only opera I know of which could be said to have multiple role creators is Le maschere‎, which premiered simultaneously in six Italian cities. Voceditenore (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Several Wikicenturies ago, I complained here about being reverted for using the "created" formulation. My knuckles were rapped here. Season's greetings to all. --GuillaumeTell 00:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
There was a more recent discussion at User talk:TyrS#Role creators where considerable evidence for the term's usage was presented. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand that this use of "created" is common within performing arts, but I guess I have to agree with the arguments (linked above) by Mel Etitis and TyrS, that this use of the term is misleading and confusing to people who are not already aware of it, and while it's surely fine in contexts where that's understood, such as Grove, in interest of making Wikipedia articles understandable to the widest possibly audience, it seems like it might be preferable to use "was the first person to play the role" or something similar that will not be so widely misunderstood. cmadler (talk) 12:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Instead of such a bulky construction I normally write "performed in the premiere" - but under DYK character restriction even that is sometimes too long. "Playing" of course is way too little for an opera singer, singing being most important, and therefore I think "create" describes the complex task best, after all. Informal DYK for the one in question: After creating the role she burned the score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
"performed in the premiere" is good too, since it says the same thing, but in a way that will be clear to a wide audience. Re DYK, I confirmed the burning of the score in the source and got that added to the hook, it makes it more interesting! cmadler (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Opera articles: Recordings - which to exclude?

Turning rather tardily to the Operas of the Month, I've been turning the mishmash that is Iphigénie en Tauride#Recordings into a table, following (more or less) the standard format shown in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera/Article_styles_and_formats#Recordings_.28table_style.29. I was thinking of adding some or all of the other sets that can be found on the Operone.de site, but Folantin, whom I've been consulting, points out that "a lot of them are long out-of-print recordings plus some "semi-legit" live stuff."

I'm sure that I've seen some discussion of this somewhere-or-other on WP, maybe more than once, but can't remember where. My inclination would be to include only recordings whose label is respectable - HMV, EMI, Decca, Sony, Telarc, DG, Philips, Naxos, Orfeo, etc., whether in or out of print, whether live or not, and including pre-CD formats such as LPs. I wouldn't include, for example, Premiere Opera, but there's a bit of a grey area with, to me, fairly respectable (are they?) labels such as Bongiovanni, Myto and Gala. I was going to add Arthaus, but that seems to be a subsidiary of Naxos, so is apparently legit (is it?). Maybe I should only include labels that appear in List of record labels, which would exclude Bongiovanni, Myto, Gala and Arthaus.

Can we formulate some guidelines which could be added to the Article styles and formats subpage - all comments welcome.

--GuillaumeTell 17:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm off to see this in a minute, but there something about it in the guidelines already [16], although I think it is less noticeable now that someone put it in table form. It was based on these discussions: [17] [18]. But they can always be reformulated or expanded. Voceditenore (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure these labels are all "legit", although I think Italy (or is it San Marino?) has rather looser copyright laws than elsewhere in Europe. I was struck by the inclusion of the 1973 live Gardiner Iphigénie on the list of recordings. I've heard it and the quality is not too good. It's only one disc too - Iphigénie is short but it's not that short. Although it's probably legal, I can't imagine Gardiner being too happy with it being around, especially when there's a fine studio recording of his from the 80s. So do we really need to note its existence? On the other hand, there are recordings on these labels we really should note. As far as I know, if you want to hear the whole of Gounod's Sapho, at the moment your only option is a Gala reissue of a 1979 radio broadcast.
I would use a similar rationale for including out-of-print recordings. If it's the only (or one of the only) recordings ever made of a work, then it deserves its place. But the major labels must have slews of Carmens gathering dust in their archives and I'm not sure we need to list them all. --Folantin (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Gala, Myto, Bongiovanni and Arthaus are all legitimate record companies. Arthaus is not actually a subsidiary of Naxos, though it is distributed by Naxos in some countries. We should certainly not restrict ourselves to the major record companies (EMI, Sony, Universal and Warner), for the very simple reason that there are dozens of independent labels out there whose output in the last decade has been far more interesting than the standard fare we get from the majors. In my opininion, any recording that meets any of the four criteria below can be said to be notable:
  • at least one of the parties involved in the recording (be it the record company, conductor, orchestra, instrumental or vocal soloist, ensemble etc) is notable enough to have an article in WP;
  • it is a world premiere recording;
  • the recording has some other proven historical signifance (e.g. recordings of performances which resulted in a revival of the interest in the work or it's composer)
  • it is the only available recording;
all this regardless of artistic merit. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My own view is that discographies should reflect as complete a recording history as possible, rather than be a shopping guide to the best, or most available, or by the biggest labels. But that applies to studio recordings by legit labels and live performances where the intention was to record and release (as is often done now by Decca, Bongiovanni, Opus Arte, and Arthaus), and live recordings released by the opera houses themselves, which more and more are starting to do, including Glyndbourne, ROH, La Scala, etc. However, no "accidental" releases, i.e. off-air recordings (or in-house pirates). A lot of those are released by Gala and Myto which are sort of legit labels, but they should only be used if there are very few or no other recordings. For the smaller labels, e.g. Bongiovanni, if the recording has been reviewed in a print publication like Gramophone, Opera, Opera News, American Record Guide, Musical Times, etc. there is an even more compelling reason to include them. Voceditenore (talk) 17:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera/Archive_99&oldid=1190138200"