Jump to content

Talk:List of prominent operas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kleinzach (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 24 June 2006 (→Proposed model annotation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconOpera Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Operas performed currently

I've been a subscriber to "Opera" magazine for some years. It publishes annually a collection of indexes to its reviews and articles, and one of these is an Index of [operatic] Works. I thought it might be amusing to take the index for 2005 and a) list the works which were most frequently performed and b) see how often each of the "Standard Operatic Repertory" operas in this article was performed last year.

"Opera" is published in Britain, and some caveats need to be made:

  • it has good coverage of opera in Britain, but this is too good, in a sense, in that it reviews fringe and student productions as well as those of the main British companies.
  • while it covers major houses in other parts of the world, coverage of minor houses (e.g. in Germany, Italy, Russia) is patchy.
  • I have not scrutinised the entries for each opera closely except to ignore CD and DVD reviews and general articles. So it's possible that multiple reviews of the same production in different locations have been counted - this may well be true of Tippett's "Knot Garden", although 1995 was his centenary year.
  • I haven't checked whether the list for Wagner's Ring duplicates the lists for each constituent opera

Don't take this too seriously, folks! Better figures would be obtained from a trawl through the indexes for several years, rather than just one.

5 or more reviews in 2005

  • 17: Magic Flute
  • 14: Cosi fan tutte, Rigoletto
  • 13: La Traviata
  • 12: La Boheme, Carmen
  • 10: The Barber of Seville, Don Giovanni, Falstaff, The Marriage of Figaro
  • 9: Tristan und Isolde, Turandot
  • 8: La Clemenza di Tito, Faust, Fidelio, L'Incoronazione di Poppea, Nabucco, Die Walküre
  • 7: Ariadne auf Naxos, La Cenerentola, Les Contes d'Hoffmann, Eugene Onegin, Madame Butterfly, Parsifal, Der Rosenkavalier, Salome, Il Trovatore
  • 6: The Knot Garden, Norma, The Queen of Spades, Das Rheingold, Roméo et Juliette, Tosca
  • 5: Aida, Don Carlos, Don Pasquale, L'Elisir d'amore, Die Fledermaus, The Flying Dutchman, Giulio Cesare, Lohengrin, Macbeth, Otello, Pelléas et Mélisande, Rinaldo, Siegfried

Operas listed above which aren't in the "Standard Operatic Repertory" list

L'Incoronazione di Poppea, The Knot Garden, Rinaldo (also Rodelinda and Der Kaiser von Atlantis, each with 4 reviews, and a lot more with 3 or fewer)

Operas in the "Standard Operatic Repertory" with no reviews in 2005 (in order of composer)

I Puritani, Prince Igor, Louise, La Fille du Régiment, Martha, Fedora, Il Guarany, Les Huguenots, L'Africaine, The Fiery Angel, Il Tabarro, Suor Angelica, The Golden Cockerel.

--GuillaumeTell 16:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never been a fan of this page's inclusion criteria - or even understood what they are supposed to be. Using OperaBase, I ran GuillaumeTell's list of no reviews (added his several reviews but not on our list) and a number of others (a few really popular ones as a baseline, all works which were the only listing for a composer, all the American regional examples specifically excluded, other ones I hadn't heard of, etc.) By number of productions since Aug 2005:
Magic Flute 106
Il barbiere di Siviglia 57
Rigoletto 49
Die Fledermaus 35
Hansel und Gretel 33
Orfeo 29 -- not on main list at all, pushed into historical category
Fidelio 22
Les contes d'Hoffmann 21
L'Incoronazione di Poppea 19 - not on our list
Dido and Aeneas 17
The Queen of Spades 14
The Bartered Bride 14
Rodelinda 12 - not on our list
Suor Angelica 11
Boris Godunov 11
Der Freischütz 11
Orfeo ed Euridice 10
Alcina 10
Andrea Chénier 9
Pelléas et Mélisande 9
The Rake's Progress 8
Dialogues des Carmelites 8
La Gioconda 8
Bluebeard's Castle 7
Giulio Cesare 7
Serse 7
Die lustigen Weiber von Windsor 7
Il Tabarro 7
Louise 7
La Fille du Régiment 6
Samson et Dalila 6
The Cunning Little Vixen 6
The Golden Cockerel 5
La sonnambula 5
Porgy and Bess 5 - not on list at all, called too regional, productions in two countries
Rinaldo 5 - not on our list
Susannah 4 - not on list at all, called too regional, productions in two countries
Lakmé 4
Adriana Lecouvreur 4
Martha 4
Vanessa 3 - not on list at all, called too regional, productions in three countries
The Knot Garden 3 - not on our list
Nixon in China 3
Khovanshchina 3
Ariodante 3
Der Kaiser von Atlantis 2 - not on our list
Fedora 2
I Puritani, 2
Prince Igor 2 - on main list but only 2 productions, both in Russia
Agrippina 2
Thaïs 2
Mignon 2
L'Africaine 1
Mefistofele 1
Ballad of Baby Doe 1
The Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District 0
Il Guarany, 0
Les Huguenots 0
The Fiery Angel 0

I don't know how thorough Operabase is and wouldn't like to suggest a hard cutoff based on its numbers but would say that for a number of the operas at the bottom of this list, it would be difficult to make an argument that these are standard repertoire. It might be best to shorten this list some and also add Rodelinda, L'Incoronazione di Poppea and Orfeo, for example. Rmhermen 01:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Research by GuillaumeTell and Rmhermen

While I applaud GuillaumeTell and Rmhermen for their painstaking research (and Opera and Operabase are excellent sources of information), it really confirms what we knew already.

This article attempts to do two completely different things at the same time: list famous operas and the so-called standard repertory. While there are (obviously) famous operas, the existence of a single, agreed (and therefore) standard repertory is doubtful, except in the sense of a lowest common denominator.

For example, we could ask one contributor each in Berlin, Paris, London, Vienna, Milan, St Petersburg, New York and wherever else to write a list and then eliminate all titles that were not universally present. No doubt we could agree that Carmen was on the list, but perhaps an easier way forward would be to remove the introduction (about the standard operatic repertory) altogether? What do other people think? - Kleinzach 18:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more useful to come up with a better definition, rather than removing all definition. Otherwise the list will become as long as the List of operas, and lose any meaning it might possibly have. Of course, I don't have a good definition to give, but I think GuillaumeTell and others are working towards a good solution. Mak (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately three more weeks have passed and no-one has come up with a better definition, let alone a solution. Where does that leave us? Continuing with the periodic business of taking a couple of names off and sticking a couple of new ones on? My suggestion is to make this a list of famous operas deleting the introduction (about the standard operatic repertory) but I'd be delighted to listen to any new ideas. Doctors GuillaumeTell and Rmhermen have diagnosed the illness. What is the cure? - Kleinzach 10:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page seems problematic. Fame and canonical status are inevitably relative to the country, and even the house (or manager), and it's not clear than extracting a lowest common denominator results in interesting or useful information. Also, they aren't binary (Aida vs. Peter Grimes). And there's no clear criterion for inclusion in this list ("n performances at major houses in the last m years", "more than n google hits", "listed in such-and-such opera book", etc.). I'm particularly uncomfortable with the practice of listing inclusion in opera articles (e.g., Eugene Onegin "It is part of the standard operatic repertoire.") for just those reasons: it doesn't respect differences across locations, and it suggests a false binary status. Much better would be a sentence or two in the "Performance History" section (Aida would have a very different sentence than Peter Grimes).
So I'm proposing (1) removing references to this article from opera articles, and (2) deleting this article. I feel more strongly about (1). Fireplace 12:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support suggestion (1), removing references to this article from opera articles, as a first step. - Kleinzach 13:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both suggestions 1 and 2 seem both reasonable and correct to me. To attempt to define standard operatic repertory is futile anyway, as it varies from opera house to opera house, let alone from country to country, but to do so on something like Wikipedia is futile lunacy. However, I would suggest that we preserve the list of historically significant operas, as to me that seems both useful and informative, and could be an interesting little spin - off from the main Opera article. Best to all, Moreschi 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references to this article from opera articles

Three members support removing links to this page from opera articles. This could be accomplished by going through the list of links (located below the search box). Are any members opposed to this? - Kleinzach 21:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three days have passed and no objections, so the dogs of deletion have been let loose. I've done maybe a third, and I'll have another go tomorrow. I've also deleted some entries from the list on the basis that the entries themselves for these operas explicitly stated that they were not part of standard rep. A total shambles. I also came across a couple of spoiler warnings, which I speedily deleted. Cheers, Moreschi 21:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work! My current (well, tomorrow's) activity involves frying one or two other fish and nailing (yet again) a canard or two. I'll help out if necessary when I'm done. --GuillaumeTell 00:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All done (I think). I may have missed one or two, but I think that's the lot. If an opera was indisputably part of standard rep (Giulio Cesare, Idomeneo, most of the Verdis), then I left in the reference to standard rep but removed the wikilink. If it was borderline (and there were a few on this list that I'd never even heard of before) then I removed the sentence linking the entry to this list altogether. Congratulations to Fireplace: his new boxes containing vocal ranges and original casts look very good, and I came across quite a few of these as well. As a next step, I would support a vote for this articles's deletion, but preserving the list of historically significant operas. Moreschi 12:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just deleted another 25 (including Don Carlos, Carmen, Porgy and Bess, Cendrillon, Anna Bolena), plus the entire works of César Cui. An awful lot of them, especially the ones by Cui and Rimsky-Korsakov, said that the opera is NOT part of the standard repertory! I got these by clicking on the "What links here link" in the Toolbox, bottom left of the article. There are still over 50 links there, including at least two to (Russian) composers, but some of these are to user pages. One, by the way, is to an article-for-deletion entitled "Operas by original title and English title". It's now been deleted but seemed only to have two items in the list. Interestingly, just about none of the votes cast were signed by users whose names I recognise from around here. Anyway, these extra links want zapping, but I feel that I've done my bit. --GuillaumeTell 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh lord, what a mess. I missed that search tool: I went through the entries of all the operas included in this list. I reasoned that surely no one would be so thick as to say that their opera was in standard rep and then not bother adding an entry in this page. Evidently not. The extra links shall shortly be zapped. Best wishes and apologies to all. Moreschi 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next step?

Now we have acted on Fireplace's excellent suggestion of removing the links to this page, what's next? I think the main ideas were:

1. Outright deletion of this page
2. Removing the 'Standard operatic repertory' intro (This list comprises the standard operatic repertory . . . . ), merging both the 'Standard operatic repertory' and 'Historically significant operas' into a single list of (innocuous?) famous operas.
3. Making it into a annotated list, with the selection justified solely by the annotation.

In general, I am not in favour of deleting exclusive lists such as this one, the List of major opera composers, or the List of important opera companies. They serve a different purpose to the big inclusive lists like The opera corpus or Opera houses. Kleinzach 09:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favour an annotated list called List of Important Operas. --GuillaumeTell 09:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be for outright deletion (as I said above) but preserving the list of historically important operas. To my mind, the other 2 suggestions will run into the same problems as the current version has. If we are going to preserve the list, however, I feel that it needs to be drastically purged, as currently it's way too long. Moreschi 13:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support GuillaumeTell's suggestion, though I'm not convinced the name change is necessary - but it wouldn't do any harm. I agree with Moreschi about the need for a purge, though I'm not in favour of hiving off the 'Historically Significant' list. It's so limited. I don't think it can stand on its own. - Kleinzach 14:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How, exactly, would an "annotated list" work? I don't quite understand the term. Moreschi 16:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There would be two or three sentences explaining very briefly what the opera is and why it is significant. Kleinzach 17:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O.K, I understand now, but what would the criteria be for "important" (Mr Tell) or "significant" (Herr Kleinzach)? Surely both of these are just as vague as "famous" (current)? Best to all, Moreschi 08:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The brief annotation would itself be the justification (and therefore the criteria) for listing. This would be an improvement on the current list because anybody adding a work will have to explain why it is there. Of course there will still be disagreements but these should be reduced. (If this idea is accepted I volunteer to do the four Mozart operas!) - Kleinzach 08:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that seems reasonable to me. Rename as List of Important operas, and I volunteer to do the purge that is desperately needed. Moreschi 10:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that about one third should go, but this may be controversial. I suggest you provide a list of proposed items to purge here under a new heading Purge. Is that OK? - Kleinzach 11:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now I come to properly think about it, however, perhaps a rename isn't such a great idea. I can think of quite a few very famous operas that might not be included as they were not "important" to opera's development and did not especially infuence other composers.Moreschi 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a neutral adjective to indicate that it is a select list. Are there any other suggestions apart from famous and important? - Kleinzach 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, influential? It's still based on a POV but at least it's a little more clear what the basis is. Mak (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to important, but it does have the advantage of including important-because-pioneering, important-because-influential, important-because-popular, important-because-frequently-performed, important-because-you name-another-reason. My problem with other suggestions is that I really wouldn't want to confine the list to the historically significant (first TV opera? Oh, how interesting!) and I wouldn't want to lose operas like Il Trovatore or Les Huguenots or A Life for the Tsar or .... --GuillaumeTell 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - after some thought and noting GuillaumeTell's argument - that 'important' is best. So that is two votes. Any other suggestions? - Kleinzach 08:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any more comments? If not, may I change the name to List of important operas? - Kleinzach 12:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. Fireplace 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria-based Vs annotated list

I've no strong opinions here... another possibility is a list with a concrete listing criteria. Examples would be: at least n performances in the last m years (operabase), at least n upcoming performances, or inclusion in 2-out-of-3 of Grove, Oxford, and Kobbes (or whatever). Fireplace 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt whether a 'concrete listing criteria' would be practical. If based on recent performances it would have to be kept up to date. On the other hand, if someone wrote a new list of works performed in 2005 in major houses (perhaps defined by the important opera companies list) that would be interesting and worthwhile.
If the list was based on inclusion in books like Grove, Oxford etc. it would be huge. (Grove has about 1,800 works!). So all in all I still prefer the idea of a self-referential annotated list based on what we have now (but pruned). - Kleinzach 08:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purge

Here is a list of items that I believe need to be purged. Being a Londoner, the list will have a Londoner's POV but will still, I believe, be fairly accurate. This list has become ludicrously gargantuan. I probably could have put more on my "little list", but decided to refrain. Feel free to throw brickbats. However, some of these should only be deleted if the definition does not change. Handel's Agrippina might be viewed as "important" as it was one of Handel's last works in Italy and probably the reason he was invited to London, but it certainly isn't "famous". If we are going to change to "important", we are certainly looking at a much longer list. This might not, on reflection , be such a good thing.

  • Bellini - I puritani
  • Bellini - Norma
  • Berlioz - Les Troyens. May be Berlioz's best but still must go.
  • Bizet - Les pecheurs de perles. Oh yeah, wot's that , mate, the other one other than Carmen? Perhaps getting there but still no.
  • Boito - Mefistofele
  • Borodin - Prince Igor
  • Britten - Albert Herring
  • Charpentier - Louise
  • Cilea - Adriana Lecouvrer
  • Friedrich von Flowtow - Martha
  • Handel - Agrippina. A great opera but a rarity. Probably only there because the ENO are doing it this season.
  • Leoncavallo - Pagliacci
  • Mascagni - Cavelleria Rusticana. What? Who?
  • Massenet - Werther
  • Meyerbeer - L'Africaine
  • Ponchielli - La gioconda
  • Thomas - Mignon
  • Verdi - Ernani
  • Carl Maria von Weber - Der Freischutz

Moreschi 08:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


These, to my mind, are absolutely required to go, providing our definition does not change. However, here is a further list of "maybes" for everyone to chew over.

  • Delibes - Lakme
  • Donizetti - Maria Stuarda
  • Humperdink - Hansel und Gretel
  • Nicolai - The Merry Wives of Windsor
  • Prokofiev - War and Peace
  • Offenbach - Les contes d'Hoffmann

And now perhaps a couple to add in:

  • Britten - The Turn of the Screw
  • Handel - Orlando.
  • Handel - Rodelinda.

Best to all, Moreschi 09:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My purge/don't purge votes are above - based on the assumption that we go with the wording List of important operas or similar. Maybe other people can add their votes under mine? - Kleinzach 10:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with List of important operas as long as it remains watched and discussed, I think it can be useful. I only added my opinion to ones I care about, the others could stay or go as far as I'm concerned. Mak (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed the first round of purges - I hope to everybody's satisfaction. - Kleinzach 23:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. This all seems a bit sudden - is thirty-six hours enough time for people to comment? I was intending to add my twopence-worth.
Also, shouldn't the process have been done the other way round - i.e., instead of discussing which items to purge, discuss which items to keep, and provide a rationale for each? --GuillaumeTell 00:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title change

As you can see I have now made the change to important operas as there was near-unanimous agreement on this. I have also removed the 'Standard repertory' introduction, which I think was implicit in the title change. I hope that is OK. If not please say so! (I have tried to fix the zillions of redirects etc. Please change any links that you may still find.) Thanks. - Kleinzach 18:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to annotate the list? Presumably. Having changed the name, annotation (and speedy annontation) is certainly needed. Moreschi 12:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purge Round 2

I'd like to nominate another group for deletion:

Bellini: La sonnambula

Britten: A Midsummer Night's Dream

Donizetti: The Daughter of the Regiment

Gluck: Alceste

Gluck: Iphigénie en Tauride

Gounod: Roméo et Juliette

Handel: Alcina

Handel: Ariodante

Handel: Serse (Xerxes)

Mozart: Idomeneo

Mozart: La clemenza di Tito

Prokofiev: The Love for Three Oranges

Prokofiev: The Fiery Angel

Puccini: Il tabarro

Puccini: Suor Angelica

Puccini: Gianni Schicchi

Rimsky-Korsakov: The Golden Cockerel

Rossini: L'Italiana in Algeri

Verdi: Simon Boccanegra

Please register an aye or a nay! - Kleinzach 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed model annotation

Here is my proposed model for annotations:

Don Giovanni (1787): a dramma giocoso (a form of opera with both comic and tragic moods) by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart to an Italian libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte. Mozart’s treatment of the legend of the Spanish serial womanizer Don Juan is one of the most popular and frequently performed of all operas.

I also suggest we list the operas alphabetically by work rather than composer. Comments? - Kleinzach 13:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The model for annotations is fine, but I see nothing wrong with continuing to list by composer. Moreschi 15:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like the annotations, not sure why list by work? I like it by composer, but for no compelling reason. Mak (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, perhaps the annotation is a bit much. Perhaps work name, year, composer, possibly librettist (I never care about librettists but I probably should) and strongest reason for it being "important". so:
Don Giovanni (1787) by Mozart to a libretto by Lorenzo da Ponte is one of the most popular and frequently performed of all operas.
But you could convince me otherwise. Also, I don't see a reason for the year to be linked. Mak (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to say why an opera is important in one sentence, so I prefer having two. However we might shorten it by removing the (9 word) genre explanation. As for the year link - this is usually (over?) done on WP, no? - Kleinzach 19:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's something to be said for listing the operas chronologically, which would make sense once we add in the Historical works. It depends on what we think readers might want to use the list for (the $64,000 question!). Otherwise I'd go with listing by composer. No need to list librettists. Short citations are best. --GuillaumeTell 17:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of listing chronologically, perhaps with sections for Baroque etc. I assume the page is there to answer the beginner's question of what are the main. most important operas. Arranging by date/period would make the list easier to use. - Kleinzach 17:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a chronological listing would be good. In terms of the annotation, I interpret your example as having both a very brief synopsis and an explanation of importance. I don't mind more than one sentence to adequately explain the work's place on the list, however I think a synopsis is better left to the article. And yes, dates are over-linked, but according to the Manual of style dates should pretty much only be linked when they are a full date (day, month, year) in order to avoid style wars. Mak (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I think we are very close to a meeting of minds on this. It will take a further process of editing to turn this into a finished article. It may be a good idea to regard all decisions at this stage as provisional. I hope we can be clear about where we are going and maintain a common purpose. From that perspective it may be better to press ahead and then let other people evaluate what we have done with the article. - Kleinzach 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Operas to add?

I'd also like to suggest some additions:

Gershwin: Porgy and Bess

Lehar: The Merry Widow

Meyerbeer: Les Huguenots

Offenbach: Orpheus in the Underworld

Schoenberg: Moses und Aron

That's 'cause I deleted it as a copyvio. 'Cause I'm a jerk. All the more reason to have it on the list, so someone writes it. Mak (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R Strauss: Arabella

Sullivan: The Mikado

Surely one of their operettas should be important enough? Perhaps The Pirates of Penzance? Mak (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, but would vote for HMS Pinafore, also a masterpiece of operatic parody, but more of a pioneer than The Pirates--GuillaumeTell 16:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weill: Die Dreigroschenoper

Please register an aye or a nay! - Kleinzach 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timescale

May I reiterate that I can't see why all this should be proceeding at the pace of an express-train. Some people have other things to do and may not be watching this page anyway. A note on the Project's Talk page would be good, and a deadline of week or so for those interested to register votes would also be good. --GuillaumeTell 16:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GuillaumeTell makes an excellent point. Let's chill for a little Kleinzach. :) Mak (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have purged/added items above on which we are unanimous and left all the others untouched. I must say getting everybody involved in solving the problem of this article has been most creative, given the history of disagreement on how to deal with this article. - Kleinzach 19:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to be purged/added

Comments welcome. --GuillaumeTell 17:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree absolutely to all. Incidentally, the current page seems to me to have a definite pro-Italian opera bias. Could someone please explain to me the importance of Pagliacci and Cavalleria Rusticana? Please excuse my ignorance in this matter. Moreschi 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cavalleria Rusticana is the first verismo opera. Both Cav and Pag are frequently performed as vehicles for star tenors from Caruso to Domingo. - Kleinzach 17:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_prominent_operas&oldid=60396811"