Talk:Rinaldo (opera)

Mission possible?

24 February 2011 is the tercentenery of Rinaldo's London premiere. I have agreed to try, in the linited time available, to expand the article to featured standard and to shepherd it through the FAC rocess in the hopes that it can be chosen as the main page article on the tercentenary date. It's a tall order but I think it can be done; in about a week I hope to have a respectable revised draft, then a week at peer review, giving 12 to 14 days for the FAC process. I am reasonably well supplied with sources (User:4meter4 has been brilliant in digging up stuff on modern performances) but if anyone can point me to articles oor other relevant texts, that will be be much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Temporary parking spot for images (while the text develops)

• File:BoucherRinaldoArmida.jpg| (Rinaldo and Armida by François Boucher, 1734 (Louvre))
• Image:Jean-Honoré Fragonard 022.jpg (Rinaldo in the garden of Armida, painting by Fragonard)
• File:Tiepolo - Rinaldo und Armida.jpg (Rinaldo falls under Armida's spell in a painting by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, one of his many works inspired by their story.)

The above images are alternates for that selected, in the "synopsis" section Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Godfrey of Boullion and Eustace

Should the roles of Goffredo and Eustazio be linked to Godfrey of Bouillon and Eustace III, Count of Boulogne? And, although more tenuously, Rinaldo's origin to House of Este? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Godfrey is already linked in two different ways, piped to Bohumir in Armida (Dvorak)#Roles and as himself in Armida (Rossini)#Roles. If he's to be linked, one method or the other should be adopted. --GuillaumeTell 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The names Goffredo and Eustazio seem close enough to the target names to permit piped linking without falling foul of WP:EASTEREGG. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Refs appear to have been vandalized quite a few edits back

• Can someone who knows this article fix the references section? Thanks! --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• Apparently Template:Subscription was vandalized. Thanks for fixing. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sample

It would be good to upload a sample from the opera, I suppose the entire work is in public domain due to author's death year. 89.76.224.253 (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The score is in the public domain, but not a performance of it, unless the performers release their copyright (or it's a very old recording pre-1923). Voceditenore (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Italic title?

Should "Rinaldo" in the article's title be italicized? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ITALICTITLE, yes. I've italicised it. mgiganteus1 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

(Seeing this here after reverting), my understanding is that opera titles are not italicized. In any case, there's surely no reason to italicize '(opera)'? --Kleinzach 05:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Opera Project has a specific practice of non-italicization, explained here, which has been applied to all titles of opera articles and has been accepted as valid through numerous FACs. Brianboulton (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is there an archive at this talk page?

Why is there a cut-and-paste archive of this talk page that's only around 2k and this page is only a little over 4k? WP:TALKCOND says "It is helpful to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 70 KB, or has more than 15 main sections" (my emphasis). —  AjaxSmack  02:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The archived discussions (2008–09) have no relation to the current article and therefore don't make any useful contribution to the talkpage discussion. The link to the archive is there, for the curious. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Says who? Plus, a reader doesn't know that until clicking through. —  AjaxSmack  17:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's good to have archives. Speeds up reading the talk page. --Kleinzach 02:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three miniscule sections in the archive that take up less than a full screen (assuming average resolution/screen size). How does having to access a separate page for that speed anything up? —  AjaxSmack  17:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brian. The older conversations have no relation to the current version of the article which has been entirely re-written and has been majorly expanded. The old and irrelevent conversations would be confusing to new editors visiting this talk page. Removing them to the archive improves clarity and prevents old, stale, and currently irelevent conversations from being needlessly revived. (As often happens on talk pages with drive-by editing by anon IPs). Having the archive makes sense and is useful. Further, one could argue that this is simply a logical implementation of the talk page policy "Refactoring for relevance" at WP:TPO. 4meter4 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this the primary topic?

Is Rinaldo (opera) the primary topic of "Rinaldo"? If not, what entry at Rinaldo is the competition? —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes there is no one primary topic. --Kleinzach 05:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. I was implying that not only are the other entries at Rinaldo are not only not primary but lack sufficient notability to compete with the opera, i.e., the opera is the primary topic. —  AjaxSmack  00:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO the Handel is not primary. --Kleinzach 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the opera is not the primary. Rinaldo is after all a first name used in Italy.4meter4 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The staging by Pier Luigi Pizzi

The user:GFHandel has undone my recent editing about the staging by Pier Luigi Pizzi, asking how a reference of "In 1985 it was given in Ferrara, Modena, ..." can support "In 1985 a very successful staging was co-produced by Reggio ...". In fact, "In 1985 …" was not supposed to be a reference, but just an account of the regional diffusion of the production in Emilia-Romagna. The reference was given at the end of my editing and consisted in the following footnote: "Programme notes for the performances of Rinaldo on 27 and 29 April 2012, Teatro Municipale Valli di Reggio Emilia (Lorenzo Parmiggiani and Mario Vighi, editors), pp. 13-15". The international success of the production before 2006 can also be argued in Franca Cella, Cronologia, in Lorenzo Arruga, Pier Luigi Pizzi. Inventore di Teatro, Turin, Allemandi, 2006, pp. 287-424.

By no means do I intend to open an edit war, but I do believe that a staging which has kept being mounted in Paris, Madrid, Lisbon, Geneva, Milan, Seoul, etc. for over twenty-five years, should be mentioned in the section about modern revivals. --Jeanambr (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

If it wasn't meant to be a reference, why did you put it in <ref>...</ref> tags so that it takes on the force of a reference (to the reader)? Look, I'll be guided by editors here in their decision, but I'm not comfortable with WP reproducing words such as "...a very successful staging..." based on programme notes (which are primary sources). We tend to relate the first performance of a work, but I do feel that it is a slippery slope to start relating recent (1985?) performances—unless they are particularly notable—which therefore must be supported by sources which are both reliable and preferably secondary. Unfortunately, try as a might, I can attribute no meaning to "regional diffusion". GFHandel ♬  20:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

In principle I agree with GFHandel's statements, but I would just add the following observations.

a. When I wrote "a very successful staging", I did not mean that the 1985 Reggio Emilia (or Paris) performances had received great applause (although they really had), but that the staging "co-produced by Reggio Emilia’s Teatro Municipale Valli and Paris’s Théâtre du Châtelet… [and] directed by Pier Luigi Pizzi" had met with a big success, the degree of which may be gauged by the fact that it has been revived for over twenty-five years by such theatres as La Fenice, São Carlos, Lisbon, Teatro de la Zarzuela, Grand Théâtre de Genève, La Scala, Seoul Arts Center and so on. From this point of view, I believe that programme notes reporting a list of performances are to be considered a secondary source.

b. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles where <ref>...</ref> tags contain not only real references, but also details or minor information referring to the fact reported in the body of the article.

c. The staging by Pizzi has been billed in almost all the chief towns of Emilia-Romagna (three times in Reggio Emilia, twice in Ferrara!), which is quite unusual for a baroque opera and maybe worth mentioning. That is what I meant for "regional diffusion": I apologize for my fancy English.--Jeanambr (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a very notable production, and its success should be mentioned, referenced for example to this article/review in Giornale della Musica, and this discussion in Opera on Stage (University of Chicago Press, 2002). However, the discussion of the production needs to be considerably tightened up and trimmed. The removed version was too long and unbalanced the performance history section. No need for example, to list every single theatre, country, etc. where it was performed. More importantly, the reader should be given some idea what the production was actually like, i.e. the big horses. Any evaluation of it should be strictly supported by the references. This is a Featured Article and care should be taken when making any additions or alterations to it so that the quality of the prose and referencing (including referencing format) remains high and consistent with the rest of the article. By the way, there's nothing wrong with using <ref></ref> for notes as well as citations but if one note is being used both for citation and extra information, the citation should come first, followed by the commentary—not stuck on at the end in parentheses. Voceditenore (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I substantially agree with Voceditenore’s observations: I had edited my note just hoping that someone else would soon copy-edit and improve it. I think the most characteristic feature of the production consists in the fact that the singers, dressed in magnificent colourful costumes with huge cloaks swollen by the wind, scarcely take steps around the stage by their own legs, and are, instead, moved about in dark platforms pulled by black-veiled mimes wearing black masks on the top of their heads. Sometimes platforms are replaced by big horses or by Armida’s chariot drawn by fire-breathing (no longer, unfortunately, in the 2012 revival) dragons. Some French reviews can be found in the site operabaroque.fr (page Rinaldo); I have some paper cuttings from the 1985 Italian press which could be scanned (Celletti’s review is quoted here, in Italian). Cheers.--Jeanambr (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

For March-April 2020 Pizzi's production is scheduled to be revived once again at the Florence Opera, thus bravely celebrating its 35th birthday. It will also be staged for the second time at La Fenice in June 2020. I am still convinced such a successful long-lasting production ought to be related in the article, which moreover already mentions its 1989 first revival at La Fenice without however even touching upon this theatrical production's origin. My insufficient command of English does not enable me to try to reinsert the information in a featured article myself, but I'd be pleased to help, if necessary and as far as I can, whoever decided to deal with it.--Jeanambr (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this. We don't as a rule mention forthcoming productions. Best wait until after the performances have taken place. Happy to help with drafting then. Tim riley talk 15:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Pizzi's production was finally revived in Florence in September 2020 and in Venice in August/September 2021. A video recording of the 9 September 2020 performance has been released by Dynamic.--Jeanambr (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

1719 (?)

The date seems inaccurate: Alcina and Orlando were premiered in the 1730s. I have not corrected the date myself as I don't know the source whence the quotation is drawn.--Jeanambr (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The source at the end of that sentence says Admeto and Orlando, without a specific year, so I've removed "1719" and changed the name of the first opera. DrKiernan (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I accept that in the past there have been infobox wars on other articles. I have not been a part of that, but I know it happens. If you believe that this article would be spoiled and not assisted by an infobox, please state your reasons here. I do not have an opinion about infoboxes on this particular article, so I shall not be taking part in this discussion. I am just asking you to keep the peace. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)