Talk:Thespis (opera)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Original comment

Right! A list of numbers! Adam Cuerden 14:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ballet

I've updated the discussion of the ballet. Spencer and Tillett concluded that they had correctly identified all five of the movements, not merely three out of five. Offhand, I can't think of any citable source that has disputed their conclusion as to the remaining two movements. Although they rely on different kinds of evidence for those movements, they back it up with highly specific and detailed reasoning. I've added the specific references. I am not suggesting that someone couldn't have disagreed with them, only that I'm not aware of any published source that did so. Marc Shepherd 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

They concluded that, yes. However, their conclusions aren't that credible sometimes. "There's a picture of a Dragon! Quick! Look for something with Dragon in the title!" And "Picture of a harp? Well, this piece has a lot of harps...." They offer no proof that the evidence they use to identify the "Lost" movements actually applies to the Ballet Hell, for all we know that dragon was Draco, and was one of the constellations in the opening number.

In short, yes, they think they've identifierd all of them correctly, but we can't say that for a fact, as the levels of evidence required for Thespis can be a bit weak. It's not a bad choice musically, I'll admit. Adam Cuerden 07:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, I can be a nasty, sususpicious bastard sometimes, can't I? I dunno. I think they have a certain chance of being right, but I'm just not willing to take the jump and say yes, that's obviously right. Mainly because "St. George and the Dragon" at the least seems likely to be wrong - aren't there any Greek mythological dragons? Adam Cuerden 10:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but neutrality requires that we represent their view accurately. The previous edit implied that T&S just dropped in a couple of random movements because they needed five, and only three were available. To the contrary, they had specific reasons (and not just the photo of St. George and the Dragon) for beliving the two movements they chose were the correct ones. If a quotable source has disagreed, naturally we should represent that view too. Marc Shepherd 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly agree. I should have been more careful: There were the page numbers to give the length, and so on. If we accept the hypothesis that the music WAS used elsewhere, I think we can accept their judgements with reasonable confidence. But, well, think it is worth pointing out a difference between a probable reconstruction and a definite identification. Must reign in the more agressive side that I have, though. Adam Cuerden 12:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have Rees, but looking at the first night programme reproduced in Allen, there is a statement "In Act First, A GRAND BALLET," which would seem to contradict Rees's claim as described in this article. Should this discrepency be addressed? Shsilver 16:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination

Adam, you've done an excellent job researching and writing the new sections, and I think the piece is pretty comprehensive. I have gone through the intro and background sections carefully now and have made copy edits. There is a bit of repetition in the background sections, but it may be helpful to the flow of the writing. Let's see what the GA reviewer thinks. Congratulations. -- Ssilvers 04:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is at least GA, but probably not yet FA. I think that, with a very reasonable effort, most of the G&S opera pages could be pushed up to GA. Marc Shepherd 15:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it probably does need a little more work for FA, but the FA process is pretty good at getting things past the last few hurdles, so, as long as it's nearly there, I think we should go ahead. Of course, Peer Review first. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions to reorganize

I've re-introduced the explanatory paragraph, minus the unsourced material:

Thespis is an extravaganza in which the gods of Olympus, who have become elderly, are temporarily replaced by a troupe of 19th century actors and actresses, one of whom is the eponymous Thespis (named after the Greek father of the drama).

I agree, and indeed I think this should go in the LEAD. -- Ssilvers 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

We need to remember that we are writing for the generalist audience that does not know what Thespis is about. We shouldn't launch into a lengthy discussion of its genesis, without providing more basic information that the average person would consider important. The ordering of the material still leaves a lot to be desired. For instance, the fact that a movement was repurposed from L'Ile Enchentee is a fairly minor point, when the production history is still lacking.

The article repeats several points, for instance, that Thespis outlasted five of nine competitors.

The section on Terence Rees should be restructured, as Rees isn't the only one who has researched the subject. The point is to talk about the subject matter (with Rees's comments being, of course, duly noted), rather than to talk about Rees himself.

The section on recordings is inaccurate, as the Rees/Morton version was recorded. We also need to discuss the Tillett/Spencer research, which is the most recent Thespis scholarship out there.

I do hope to tackle these points myself, but wanted to indicate where I'm headed. Please excuse the abruptness of the comments, but this comes of being in a hurry. Marc Shepherd 22:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, looking forward to your further edits. -- Ssilvers 22:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to simplify a bit. Actually, I wouldn't be adverse to cutting the information from the lead about what survives and what doesn't - it's awfully similar to what we say later. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Marc, please check the first paragaraph. Adam and I have not been able to agree about it. -- Ssilvers 01:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I just think that, since it being lost and the first G&S opera are the best-known (and arguably most important) bits of information about Thespis that we should say them both straight away. It doesn't do much good to talk about how great G&S are, then, after getting them excited, admit "but this one doesn't survive". Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, "comic opera collaboration" - is that even English? Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the first sentence is OK now, but I am not sure about the other two. I liked this version: "...beginning one of the most famous and successful *[theatrical?]* partnerships in Victorian era England. Gilbert and Sullivan created thirteen more comic operas, including the hits H.M.S. Pinafore, The Pirates of Penzance and The Mikado. Thespis was never published, and most of the score is now lost.

Good work, gentlemen. Marc had written: "The section on Terence Rees should be restructured, as Rees isn't the only one who has researched the subject.... The section on recordings is inaccurate, as the Rees/Morton version was recorded. We also need to discuss the Tillett/Spencer research, which is the most recent Thespis scholarship out there." I look forward to any further edits along these lines or any others. In reply to Marc's question on my talk page, I still think that the second and third sentences of the first paragraph should basically be switched, but I can live with this. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sparkeion caption

Hi, Adam. Just a couple of thoughts: Mlle Clary performed Sparkeion so engagingly that her song was the only one printed; so one could put in the caption, "...who sang 'Little Maid of Arcady'" and relegate the fact that she chose the benefit subject. Benefits of this kind were not in the actor's "honor" (as was the case with sick or old actors). This was a sort of employment benefit for regular members of a company: Each member of the company was allowed a benefit every so often, as a kind of bonus. -- Ssilvers 19:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Do we actually have evidence that that's why Little Maid of Arcadee was printed, and not, say, because it was generic enough to extract well? I can't recall seeing it mentioned, and Rees doesn't mention it in the discussion of "Little Maid of Arcadee" in the summary of Thespis (though the index isn't very good, so it might have been mentioned elsewehere).

Basically, I think, if we're going to have a picture of her, we need to explain why she'sa important. We could easily get pictures of any of the leads [Open Thespis: A Gilbert and Sullivan Engigma. Scan], so simply saying she acted as Sparkeion seems a little insignificant as a caption. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did Mlle Clary actually choose the benefit subject? All we know is that it was performed, not who decided the programme. By the way, I wouldn't classify that performance as a "revival," as it was given only a short time after the original run ended. Normally, an extra performance in the same season, at the same theatre, and with the same performers, is not termed a "revival".

I am having trouble understanding why some things are added, and others deleted, in the article. For instance, the fact that Gilbert had written a number of mythology parodies in Fun seems to me far more interesting than the fact that "Goodness gracious..." was re-purposed from Sensation Novel. We are losing the broad sweep in favor of factoids. Marc Shepherd 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and make whatever changes you think advisable, and we can review them. I agree with Adam, though, that it is interesting that Gilbert reused material from a recent opera of his. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 22:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Rees says Mlle Clary chose the programme for the benefit. Also, I don't object to mentioning Gilbert's parodies in Fun, just that it was being said (or at least implied) they were a basis for Thespis, which they really weren't. They're substantially fdifferent in style and content. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Haste

Oh, also, I think the borrowings from Sensation Novel and L'Île are useful to show the haste - they presumably borrowed things because they didn't have time to do something wholly unique. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert was constantly borrowing from himself, even when he was in no hurry. Take Trial by Jury and Princess Ida, which have more self-borrowing than the rest of the canon put together. Or, take the heavily self-borrowed Fallen Fairies, which he tried to peddle for about 15 years before Edward German finally took the bait. Marc Shepherd 15:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but borrowings of lyrics are relatively rare Trial by Jury's reuses some of the Bab Ballad, Dulcamara borrows from Wheeler J. Calamity, and, arguably, Grand Duke borrows "When you find you're a broken down critter" from a cut Mountebanks song. I suppose that Princess Ida may have borrowed some lyrics - I've never tracked down the unexpurgated Princess - but you take my point. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't take your point. Those aren't the only examples of Gilbert doing this. I think it is fair to mention self-borrowings as a factual matter. To speculate as to the reason is different. Gilbert does it often enough that you can't really assume it's because he's in a hurry. Marc Shepherd 15:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys suggest a compromise? Can the info go somewhere else? Would everyone be happy if it were dropped into foonote 7? Also, to finish our work on the article, I thought you wanted to focus on the "Terence Rees" section to note that Rees isn't the only one who has researched the subject, and you wanted to do something to the section on recordings and the Tillett/Spencer research. -- Ssilvers 16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope to put in some time on it this weekend, when I'll have my sources handy. Marc Shepherd 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to moving the information, but noone reads footnotes, so let's try to keep it in the article itself Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind noting the self-borrowing. But I don't think there's any proof that it was evidence of haste (because Gilbert self-borrowed all the time). I also think it is misplaced in the article. We have to fight the tendency to get caught up in little factoids that swallow the story. I think it's preferable to give the broad history, then to have a more detailed section on the text. See inverted pyramid.

I just noticed that Trial by Jury has an example of this problem. Last year, an editor updated the lead paragraph to include a reference to Cryptoconchoidsyphonostomata, which ran for exactly one night. It's an useful bit of artistic verisimilitude for later in the article, but in the lead paragraph? Marc Shepherd 19:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good catch on Trial. I just made a quick fix there. Feel free to adjust. -- Ssilvers 20:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rumor

Should the rumor that a copy of the vocal score was held secretly by a firm of music publishers in London and was accidentally destroyed in a fire in 1964 be included and, if so, does anyone have a citation about the rumor? Shsilver 21:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing that rumor in print. Terence Rees did tell me this himself, but our undocumented conversation wouldn't count as a reliable source. Anyhow, it was hearsay. By the time Rees became aware of it, the warehouse was already gone. All Rees had to go on was the unsubstantiated statement of someone who had formerly worked there. Marc Shepherd 21:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Chappell fire. I think it's mentioned in Thespis: A Gilbert and Sullivan Enigma in passing Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

New version

Okay, I have supplemented and reorganized the material along the lines I suggested. I toyed around with several different orders before landing on the version that's in the article now. I don't see any particular problem with the length (see WP:NOTPAPER). The articles for the other operas should probably be as detailed, although someone else will probably have to do the work. This one cost me a whole weekend, and I won't do that again anytime soon. Marc Shepherd 02:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, very good. Though there were a few points, particularly in sections using Reginald Allen, where the information provided went against every other major scholar. I cut those. Notably, Allen accepts the rumour that Sullivan said that Thespis was used up in other operas, Stedman and Rees say that he never said any such thing. [I think it's probably a misrememberance of his statements on The Sapphire Necklace, reattributed to the more famous lost opera - though that is, of course, OR) Also, the quote really is "seventy", not "seven" - Gilbert writes his "ty" a bit oddly at the end of words, but they're there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Very impressive (wow, even). Before I begin copy editing, I'd like to see Marc's responses to Adam's edits. Among other things, Adam deleted the following: "Sullivan's nephew, Herbert Sullivan, wrote that the libretto was already in existence before his uncle became involved in the project: "Gilbert showed [Hollinshead] the libretto of an operatic Extravaganza Thespis, and Hollingshead forthwith sent it to Sullivan to set." Allen concludes, based on advertisements in the first issue, as well as other factors, that the libretto was already "published and circulated" during the several weeks preceding Christmas. (Allen, p. 2) Should this be deleted? -- Ssilvers 13:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sam. I have put a few of Adam's removals back in. Adam thinks that certain statements in the literature aren't trustworthy. My feeling is that we should find where others have written that, rather than making the presumption ourselves. If a point is disputed, one should present the evidence (in rough balance to what the published sources say), and let the reader decide. I have my personal views about Thespis, but I made an effort to confine myself to sources that would pass an FA review.

To the best of my recollection, the only published version of the Strzelecki letter says "seven nights," and many other sources quote that figure (all most likely having copied it from Searle). I do agree that it's almost certainly a mis-reading of "seventy nights," but I couldn't find any citable source that has quoted the letter any other way. (I have a private letter from Stedman where she confirms it's "seventy," and if I were writing this article anywhere else, that's the source I would use.)

In the course of researching this, I found several other early sources that say that Sullivan used up the Thespis music in other operas, especially Pirates. I saw no point in quoting them all, but as far as I know Allen's statement hasn't been refuted. If so, I think it's appropriate to quote Allen, and then (if one can) the evidence that he is wrong. But I don't specifically recall where Stedman or Rees explicitly say that Allen was mistaken on this point. Marc Shepherd 13:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are several other EARLY sources, but modern sources say that's wrong.

Also, I think we can say that there is no reliable evidence that Sullivan *did* re-use any music from Thespis, except for the specific instances described, right? BTW, would it be appropriate to either ask Paul to add the Stedman letter to either the G&S Archive or to add it to the Discography? -- Ssilvers 16:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The current edit says that "there is only circumstantial evidence, not definite proof, for any of these suggestions" (i.e., that Sullivan re-used more of the Thespis music). I think that's better than saying "no reliable evidence." Tillett & Spencer introduce quite a bit of evidence to back their claims. I would never say they have proven it (and neither would they), but it feels a bit dismissive to simply say that it is unreliable. People are sometimes convicted of crimes based on circumstantial evidence.

I don't know if it's appropriate to put a private letter onto a public archive. It seems like a very minor point. We have a citable source from a major journal, which seems good enough for present purposes. Marc Shepherd 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Stedman 95-6: "This, of course, may have been the fate of other numbers to which Sullivan could have tacitly set other lyrics for the other sSavo operas. But nmeither composer nor librettist admitted it."

Crowther doesn't mention it, I can't find my Rees for the moment, but near the end he calls it a rumour.

In short, Allen is directly against other scholars on this point. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Crowther is primarily a literary critic, not a historical researcher, and Stedman's research is mainly on the Gilbert side. You haven't found anything in Rees, so it's basically Allen vs. Stedman. My only point is that, in such circumstances, it's appropriate to cite both and let the reader decide. There are, by the way, other sources (whom I did not quote) who say something similar to what Allen says. Marc Shepherd 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the current edit is pretty much fine with me. I will re-look at Rees tonight. Marc Shepherd 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rees quote about the earlier work on Thespis is out of context - Rees' full argument is that Gilbert worked a bit on it before then, but the bulk of the work fit into the shorter period. He points to the printed libretto as evidence of this haste, suggesting that Gilbert missed the deadline. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with your later revision of it, aside from some minor copy-edits. Ironically, in my original edit I had quoted Rees exactly. You took that out, which I think was part of the problem. "When in doubt, quote exactly" isn't a bad way to go.

I suppose my major objection to the content that I cut is that we need to reflect the scholarly consensus, not the ideas of single scholars. Particularly where modern scholars disagree with older ones, we ought to go with the modern assessment, because the older books, while groundbreaking, do not reflect the 75 years of archive research that came after. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a bit more nuanced view of it. Where a viewpoint is pervasive, I think it needs to be noted, even if the evidence against it is overwhelming. For instance, we say in the "Subsequent performances" section that Thespis was formerly considered a failure, and then we show that it was not so.

In some cases, the evidence isn't overwhelming either way. Rees, Stedman, Jacobs, Allen, and Ainger are at the top of the pecking order, but their expertise differs subtly. If Allen says X and Rees says "Not X," I wouldn't say that Rees has disproved Allen. I might have an opinion if I were writing this article elsewhere, but for Wikipedia purposes they are both credible enough to be cited.

On "Climbing over rocky mountain," I could quote about a dozen writers who have suggested that Gilbert's explanation is dubious, but I decided to quote the one whom Stedman found credible enough to cite. It's an important point, because Tillett & Spencer are building on that hypothesis for their own work, which remains cited in the article. Marc Shepherd 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Point. How about the current tweaks? I've referenced the Stedman and Rees parts that go against Allen, but mentioned it as a popular rumour.

However, the Allen quote about the libretto being finished weeks in advance is taking the nuanced "It's possibles" of Stedman and Rees, to a very fringy extent. Let's leave it with the "at least"s of the more nuanced description before then, as even if Allen was right, it wouldn't make that paragraph wrong, due to those at leasts. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here too, I think your latest revision gets the point across successfully. Marc Shepherd 20:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theory?

Adam has several times deleted the following, with the explanation that it is allegedly a "fringe theory":

Allen says that, in light of Gilbert's correspondence with Field, Gilbert's five-week estimate can be explained only if the five weeks were "not consecutive." Sullivan's nephew, Herbert Sullivan, wrote that the libretto was already in existence before his uncle became involved in the project: "Gilbert showed [Hollingshead] the libretto of an operatic Extravaganza Thespis, and Hollingshead forthwith sent it to Sullivan to set." Allen concludes, based on advertisements in the first issue, as well as other factors, that the libretto was already "published and circulated" during the several weeks preceding Christmas.

There are several statements in the paragraph, and I am not sure which one(s) Adam considers to be "fringe," or the basis for saying so. All of these writers, as well as Rees, are saying (in different ways) that Gilbert obviously was working on this libretto earlier than 3-5 weeks in advance, but exactly how much is undetermined. By citing what a variety of writers have said on the matter, we avoid reliance on a single source. Herbert Sullivan, the composer's nephew, clearly was in a unique position to know things that we do not. I am not aware that anyone has disputed Allen's conclusions. Marc Shepherd 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Marc, I'm sorry for getting annoyed at you, but you kept quoting the sentence at the start of Rees p. 24, and the rest of the page is the start of a lengthy argument against the libretto being completed much before December 14, and against Herbert Sullivan's statement, and I thought you had read it. Which made you seem oddly obstinate. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a couple of hours' break before going in and editing again, but let me try to explain what I'm getting at.

Many years after-the-fact, Gilbert remembered the piece was "invented, written, composed, rehearsed, and produced within five weeks." Clearly this recollection was inaccurate, unless the "rough sketch" mailed to Field is not considered part of "inventing" Thespis. Any reasonable person would assume that "sketching" a work is part of inventing it. Rees and Allen (and you & I) are in agreement that Gilbert cannot possibly have remembered this accurately.

The December 14 date (for reading the libretto to the cast) simply means that that was the date appointed for commencing rehearsals. Pygmalion and Galatea did not open until December 9, so rehearsals surely couldn't have begun much earlier than they did. It does not mean that no draft of the libretto was available earlier than that date. Allen has concluded that it was, and Herbert Sullivan says so too. The composer's nephew, of course, had unique access to the subject. I don't know on what basis we would take it upon ourselves to suppress this information, even if it had been refuted by later writers (which, of course, it has not been). Gilbert did indeed often agree contracts on the basis of a prose sketch, but he did not always. One rather well known counter-example was Trial by Jury.

So my point, quite simply, is that multiple sources agree that Gilbert must have been working on the piece for a much longer period than he later recalled. Our role here is to present the range of possibilities supported by the sources. There might be a better way of presenting it than the earlier draft did, but I don't see the case for suppressing the information. It seems to me that you are giving Rees undue weight. Marc Shepherd 22:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can't find any other scholar that says anything like what Allen says. Stedman (p. 94) says that "Composer and librettist had agreed in October.... but only after Gilbert' s fairy comedy was produced could he give Thespis his undivided attention" and then gives 14 December as the date of the reading and mentions Gilbert's estimates. Crowther (p.71) says "The piece... shows signs of considerable haste." Rees, you know. So, what am I supposed to think of Allen's claim that the libretto was already finished back in October, before any of these demands on Gilbert's time occurred? As well, Trial by Jury existed in fully completed form because it had been written for a different contract, which did not reach the stage due to the death of Madam Rosa. (Stedman, 120-1) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that Herbert Sullivan was three at the time Thespis debuted, his information must have been second-hand. So while he may have had unique access to information, it would have to have been through hearsay. Shsilver 23:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I went through the sources once again. Rees and Allen are drawing the identical conclusion, namely, that Gilbert had to have been working on the piece (at least as a scenario) much earlier than the five weeks he had recalled. Allen does not say that he believes that a full libretto existed in October. All Allen says is that it was in print during the pre-Christmas period. The date when rehearsals began, 14 October, is entirely consistent with this, so once again the two agree. It is also consistent with Gilbert's well known practice of providing type-set copies for the actors to rehearse from.

Rees does not really refute Herbert Sullivan's claim. Rees's analysis is well qualified with words like "seems," "if," "might have been," and so forth. Indeed, he says that "it is highly improbable that [14 December] represents the first opportunity the company found to consider the new work." So I do think it's appropriate to include what Herbert wrote, along with the possible arguments against it.

Shsilver, I do realize that Herbert would not have remembered Thespis contemporaneously. I am merely saying that his biography of his own uncle is obviously derived (somewhat) from what his uncle told him. While not clearly infallible, it does make him a more notable source than if someone without that connection had said the same. Marc Shepherd 00:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, 14 December, not 14 October. If Allen was simply saying it was published only in the couple weeks before Christmas, and that work began somewhat before, that wasn't the argument I was getting from the way it was being said in the article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes you're right...I mistyped. All Allen says is that the libretto was in print during the pre-Christmas period, which is consistent with what everyone else says. (Do you have a copy of Allen?) Marc Shepherd 13:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of Allen. Which is probably one of the main sources of confusion. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent reuse

An earlier edit said:

When asked in his later years what had become of Thespis, he "answered with a laugh that he had saved up its tunes for other operas."

Adam removed this, on the grounds that both Stedman and Rees refuted it. All Stedman says is that "neither author admitted it," which is ambiguous and unsourced. Rees says the following:

If we accept the story of Sullivan's pillaging of his own score to Thespis whenever he was short of a tune, then sooner or later and for this reason alone a revival would have become impossible...." (Rees, p. 88.)

That isn't a refuation. Rather, Rees is pointing out that if Sullivan did reuse most of the music, it supplies a logical reason why the piece would not have been revived. Adam, do you have another page citation from Rees? You mentioned p. 100 in one of your edit summaries, but it's certainly not there. Marc Shepherd 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How about page 3 of Forty Years of Thespis Scholarship "It is famously alleged that at some time in the 1890s, in the course of an interview with a reporter, Sullivan was asked a direct question about the music of Thespis. Identifying this interview has so far eluded the present writers." Let's document it fully in a footnote - can you add in the early sources? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that last night too. I should be able to add something tonight. But take note of the modesty that Tillett & Spencer employ. They don't say it is incorrect; they only say that they have been unable to verify it. The current wording in the article refers vaguely to a rumour, which could be anything from a newspaper quote to something one heard on a street corner. Marc Shepherd 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hollingshead.jpg

In my edit yesterday, I included a link to this image, which I had uploaded for the purpose. I will never do that again, but in the meantime, I was wondering at the reason for its quick removal from the article. Marc Shepherd 02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam substituted it for another image of John Hollingshead. I think that Marc's is more relevant to the idea of Hollingshead presenting a piece like Thespis, since it shows the variety of entertainments that Hollingshead was producing. I'm going to start a Hollingshead stub and move the other image to it. -- Ssilvers 03:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the image, but I couldn't find out where it was from with a search, and saw that bot was yelling at you on your page, so thought it might be deleted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Marc, I think you should add the URL where you got this to the image summary, or if you scanned it, say what the source is. -- Ssilvers 05:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Copy edits

I'm finished with copy edits up to the "Assessments" section. I'll do that tomorrow. Also, all the identical footnotes should be combined. For instance, if there are two footnotes that refer to page 4 of Rees, the tag should start: <ref name=Rees4> -- Ssilvers 05:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, the columns look good at various different resolutions that I have tested. I really think they are useful, unless you are telling me that they look bad in Firefox. Please put it back unless you have plans to add a nice image to the right. -- Ssilvers 05:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I was getting "Toole" [of J.L.Toole] moved to a second row. That seemed a little awkward. Could move the Mlle. Clary image back there. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the redundant footnotes. When I was drafting this over the weekend, I footnoted everything as if it were unique, because I had no idea what would stay in (and in what order), and what would be removed. As we're now heading towards a stable version, this is an appropriate next step. Marc Shepherd 13:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think we need to name all the writers: Ainger, Goldberg, Allen, Stedman in the text. The reader will think that he/she has to remember who these people are, but they are irrelevant to the discussion. If the reader wants to see which historian or critic said something, they can look in the footnote. I really think we should eliminate this name to assist the general reader in focusing on what they need to know. Opinions? -- Ssilvers 14:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be helpful to discuss some examples. In the broader literature, my sense is that one normally names the writer if you are quoting an opinion, but not if you are citing a fact. For instance, in the Assessment section, if you are quoting someone who believes Thespis is a very good libretto, you would name the person who said that. But if you are stating that Thespis ran for 63 performances, you would just state the bare fact, with the name of the person who discovered it in a footnote. Sometimes there's an exception for a particularly startling discovery, e.g., that it was Tillett & Spencer who found the ballet. Disputed facts present something of a borderline case, because the credibility of a position may depend on who is asserting it. Marc Shepherd 14:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Marc. scholars' names in the text should be reserved for debated issues (such as the section on when the libretto was written). In cases of fact, it isn't needed and in cases of opinion, it may or may not be needed in-line. Shsilver 15:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, except where we're giving a direct quote from a scholar. Also, try to include first name on first appearance, or first appearance after a long gap. I think it makes it easier to follow. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. If you quote a scholar, and the scholar is not a notable person, it should suffice that you name the scholar in the footnote to the quote. Wikipedia readers don't care who Ainger, Goldberg or Allen are. We have the references to their books below and say their names in the footnote. I think that the only place where you could possibly want to say these irrelevant names is, as ShSilver said, in the context of discussing a debated issue. Really, it is mucking up the article, IMO. -- Ssilvers 18:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few edits that try to address Sam's concern. I have tried to take names out where they aren't really that relevant while retaining the quotes. I do think the quotes add value, as otherwise we are liable to wind up with a colourless paraphrase that might not really capture the nuance of what the other writers have said. Marc Shepherd 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I certainly agree that the quotes add value, just not the names of the non-notable scholars/critics who wrote them. If Oscar Wilde says something about someone, I'd say, "Oscar Wilde said..." But if Jerry March, from Garden City Long Island, wrote something that happened to be published on the G&S Archive or in a G&S journal, we don't need to mention his name, much as I liked Jerry. -- Ssilvers 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

They usually add value, though there was one section where they seemed to be standing in the way of clearly saying what had happened (The bit about Gilbert not having gone to America). I paraphrased that. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Cast Question

In the cast list, why is Nellie Farren shown as "Mercury – Miss E. Farren (Nellie Farren)". Why not use Mercury – [[Nellie Farren|Miss E. Farren]]? Shsilver 15:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The current cast list is a jumble of styles. We should be consistent. One option is to list the performers as the original programme did, in which case we would have [[Nellie Farren|Miss E. Farren]] for Mercury and [[Fred Sullivan|Mr. F. Sullivan]] for Apollo. The other option is that, where the performer's full name is known, we give the full name. Marc Shepherd 16:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the articles in the G&S project or the musicals project use Miss and Mr. I think this is a very good policy. -- Ssilvers 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, but why is "principal" in the heading? If that word is omitted, what confusion is introduced? Are you concerned people won't realize there's a chorus? Marc Shepherd 17:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, normally in a cast list you say something like "Chorus of soldiers, whores and geeks". -- Ssilvers 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I note that we discuss that G&S elevated the chorus into an important element of the opera, yet we don't mention them in the cast list. I will do so. -- Ssilvers 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. I think people realize that when a cast list is offered, it doesn't include the individual choristers by name. That's why I thought "principal" was redundant. Marc Shepherd 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

seven vs. seventy

I think we need to either discuss the error straight out, or correct it to seventy or seven[ty]. If we don't, it's going to confuse everyone. I've tried the discussion approach, though, frankly, since it's not part of the main argument, I'd prefer to either correct to sevent[ty], or use elipsis to bypass the corrupt text, and be done with it. What do you think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with [ty] in brackets. It is unacceptable to silently alter a quote, even where you are positive that it is incorrect. As the edit now stands, you are elevating this issue to a status far beyond its actual standing. The early writers who described Thespis as a failure used the "one month" figure, not the seven days. Marc Shepherd 16:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Order of article

Should the sections on Text and surviving music go above the Reception and Assessment sections? And should the modern productions section go above at least the assessment section? -- Ssilvers 18:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a cite to Rees, p. 81-81. Can someone fix that, please? -- Ssilvers 18:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix the Rees citation tonight, if Adam doesn't beat me to it.Marc Shepherd 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Modern Productions" should come right after "Aftermath." I'm not as sure about "Text" and "Surviving music," but I won't object if you move them. I resequenced the sections several times before posting on Sunday, so there's definitely not a single "right way" to do it. Marc Shepherd 18:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I moved "Modern Productions" right after "Aftermath," and I moved "Musical numbers" above Assessment, since you can't really assess them until you've shown the reader what they are. In addition, it seems to me that "Text" and "Surviving music" could also be moved up before the "Assessment" section, since we are assessing the text and the music. Adam and Sheldon? -- Ssilvers 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

R. M. Field letter

I tried to tease out the digression on R. M. Field, but I'm not sure I was entirely successful in this. Anyone else want to have a go? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sullivan had the score in 1897?

Robin Gordon-Powell said on S'Net today, that Sullivan had part of the score in front of him when composing Victoria and Merrie England. Does anyone have the cite for this? Right now, the article refers to it being "available" in 1894. -- Ssilvers 03:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's a letter to that effect, though I'm not sure if it's referring to just the ballet or Thespis as a whole. Sorry. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's actually Sapphire Necklace I was thinking of... Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gordon-Powell was just being a bit loose in his description. We can say for sure that Sullivan had the Thespis ballet available to him at that time, since he used part of it in V&ME. Either he had the whole score of Thespis, or the ballet had been extracted from it on an earlier occasion. Marc Shepherd 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Article structure, again

I was actually wondering about moving the role list later in the article: A list seems a little awkward as a first section. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind moving the Background section above roles and summary. That is our usual structure. Opinions? -- Ssilvers 04:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - arguably, the first paragraph of "reception" flows directly out of the last paragraph of background. We'd have to shift things around a bit between sections to make that work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, would you rather have the musical numbers up under the synopsis, or would you prefer the roles and synopsis down near musical numbers? Or should we leave well enough alone? I still think they should all go in between Background - which is before the show - and Reception, which is after the show. As thus: Background; roles/plot/music; Reception. In any event, it seems to me that roles, synopsis and musical numbers belong together. -- Ssilvers 04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know. Maybe we should leave well enough alone. Or we could add a couple sentences at the start of Roles and principal cast to describe the Gaiety theatre or something. I dunno. Marc? Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

As currently placed, "Musical numbers" disrupts the narrative flow of the article. I would either move it up to the top (before "Background"), or way down to the bottom (before "Recordings"). When I was doing the new draft, originally "Background" was above the roles and plot summary, as it is for the rest of the G&S articles. But as "Background" expanded, that structure no longer seemed to make sense. Marc Shepherd 15:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I boldly moved it to the top. Marc Shepherd 17:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many dangling quotes!

Too many sections now end on quotes, without any commentary to pull the thoughts of that section together. Please, if you add quotes, talk about them. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry,t hat wasn't clear: I mean things like Sullivan's letter to Hollingshead, which now forms part of an undiscussed block of quotes, instead of being brought into a coherent discussion of the movements of the score. The criticism quotes are by and large put in context and perfectly relevant to the sections they're in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL! I'm going to wait until the current editing frenzy is over before going in again, but I think the top 2/3 of the article are really good! -- Ssilvers 18:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Adam, maybe you can suggest some improvements. I don't really have a problem with sections that end on a quote. In the example you mentioned, I couldn't think of anything further to say, nor could I readily see any better way of arranging the material. Marc Shepherd 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph on why not revived

This sentence (in the current edit, as I write this) seems to be troubling some editors:

Some sources say that Sullivan used up the music in his other operas.

One editor wanted to change "sources" to "scholars," but I don't think everyone who ever wrote a book on G&S is necessarily considered a "scholar" per se.

Another wanted to change "say" to "believe" or "assume." The sources cited all make this statement as if it were a fact. Whether the fact is true has not been demonstrated, because unfortunately the earlier commentators and biographers didn't footnote the source for everything they said. Nevertheless, they are phrasing it as a fact, not as something they "believe" or "assume." Marc Shepherd 18:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, Marc, but why "used up" instead of "used"? -- Ssilvers 18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

However, Stedman says *As a fact* that Sullivan never said such a thing. The phrasing "Some sources say" reduces a debated issue - or even an issue that came out wanting - to the standards of truth, and is thus misleading. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sam that "used" is sufficient without "up".

Adam, Stedman does indeed say that "as a fact." But all she is asserting is that, as far as she knows, the authors never admitted to re-using Thespis. Tillett & Spencer make the more modest statement that, if Sullivan did say such a thing, they can't find it. This is more appropriate, as one can never really prove a negative. Marc Shepherd 18:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but "say" is awkward English at best. It makes it sound like all the scholars were speaking in unison, or something. Unless you think "believe" has negative connotations, I can't see why you object to it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now replaced it with "assert". A belief is something you "feel" is true (e.g., belief in God). What we have here are statements of fact without attribution, which is a different thing than "beliefs." Walbrook, for instance, specifically states that Sullivan admitted this in later life. Unfortunately, Walbrook doesn't tell us his source, but there's no question that Walbrook is stating a fact, not a belief. Marc Shepherd 18:45, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, assert works, but it still seems somewhat strange English - I've never seen that word used outside of a legal context until I got to Wikipedia. 18:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)

I was fine with "say," but there are other ways we could go, e.g., "According to some sources,...." Marc Shepherd 18:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I like "assert" more than "say", but I wouldn't mind clarifying that *none* of them cite a source. -- Ssilvers 19:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

Two surviving Sullivan letters refer to Thespis. In 1873, he wrote, in response to a query by Joseph Rummell (who had arranged Sullivan's Merchant of Venice score for the piano), "Thespis is not published but if you like I will send you the Full Score of the Duet in question." There is no further known correspondence on the subject.

First off, have a look at page 14 of [1], I think Rees also discusses the incident. Both specifically say it's Here far away from all the world. Second, I think we have Joseph Rummell's letter in Rees - I may be wrong, it's gone walkabout again, but he at least provides a summary - and it seems far more relevant than Sullivan's response, which isn't even particularly well written. Thirdly, the section aftermath is a really poor place to discuss it, it'd be better in "Music", or, even better, move all these discussions of the movements of the score to the existing discussion at the start of "Surviving numbers". Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Does Allen not give the context or something? I'm getting the most awful view of Allen's book from this second-hand view of it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I see Adam's point, and have moved the discussion to the "Music" section. "Surviving numbers" wouldn't really make sense, as it doesn't survive. The Allen/D'Luhy book was an exhibition catalog. It contains a brief description of the items that were put on display, without a lot of commentary. It just happens to be the only source I could find that quotes this particular letter. Marc Shepherd 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that quote is accurate? It seems oddly punctuated for a Victorian quote. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

In their private correspondence, G & S were much more loose about the standard rules of punctuation and grammar than they would have been in a published piece, just as people are in e-mail today. Marc Shepherd 18:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved "text" section below "surviving music" section

I have finished proofreading the article and making my copy edits. I also did a little reorganization here and there, most notably moving the "text" section below the music section and renaming it "state of the text", since it is not really about the libretto, but only about why the text survives in the state that it does. On the other hand, the "surviving music" section continues the musical analysis that was begun in the Assessment section, so the reorg leaves those two related sections one above the other. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 19:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I've done some minor copyedits, but think, when we're back from Bob and Jackie's, we'll be about ready to put this up for FA. What do you think, Marc? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I've removed Goldberg's suggestion that part of Little Maid of Arcadee was lifted from Carmen: Carmen didn't premiere until 4 years later. I suppose we could say Goldberg compared it to Carmen, but, well... Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)