Talk:Jacques Offenbach/Archive 2

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

Capitalization of "salle"[edit]

I noticed that the French practice of not capitalizing certain words in proper names, for example, "salle Marigny", "salle Lacaze", and "salle Choiseul", has been used in this article. I know some writers in English do follow the French practice, but The New Grove Dictionary of Opera (and many other books in English) do not, using "Salle Choiseul" even in running text. I would favor using the capital "S". --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should be clear about this. Unless I'm mistaken, the capitalization of "salle Marigny" etc. in text has never been discussed by any of the CM projects. (Attention has always been concentrated on titles.) On the other hand Wikiproject France has an established practice of giving street addresses in the form 'rue Zidane' (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_France/Paris#Paris_Streets) which we follow for theatre articles etc. I see no reason to change "salle Marigny" etc. unless a relevant 'global' change has consensus. --Kleinzach 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that The New Grove Dictionary of Opera does not capitalize "rue" or "boulevard" even when used as part of a proper name in running text, but does capitalize "Salle". However, English readers generally expect proper names to be capitalized (except for "of","the", etc.). This even appears in the definition: "a name used for an individual person, place, or organization, spelled with initial capital letters" (Oxford American Dictionary). Perhaps this might end up being handled like date formats, depending on what was first used in the article? Or, like you suggest perhaps it can be discussed and made consistent for the entire encyclopedia. Where is the best place to discuss it? It seems possible that the editors at the French project may favor French practice, so probably it would be good to also get input from editors who are not that familiar with French practices. I've noticed that academic books, usually written by scholars who are fluent in French, tend to follow the French practice, although this is not always the case. For instance, David Cairns capitalizes "Rue" in running text in his biography of Berlioz. It might be better to check usage in more generally read sources, such as major newspapers and the like. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would have to be discussed at WikiProject France, though it might be difficult to get a result. BTW I don't think there is one definite French style for this. --Kleinzach 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When researching for the overhaul of this article, using principally three English biogs and dipping into three French ones and one German one where necessary, I found no consensus on this, even in the French texts, and so I followed the prevalent capitalisation in the relevant WP articles. I'd be cautious about following the practice of the French press of the period, as usages change over the years (e.g. in English papers "Downing-street", "Oxford-circus", etc from the 19th century) but if there is a consensus for different punctuation, I shall be happy to go along with it. The article is now at Peer Review where all contributions will be most gratefully received. Tim riley (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google Books with "salle choiseul" (exact phrase) for books in English (see this search), and although the search did turn up a few French books which used "salle Choiseul", none of the books in English appeared to use the lower case "s". (I would not be surprised if the German texts capitalize it, since it is a noun, but of course that is not relevant for us.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also searched with the exact phrase "salle lacaze" (see here). I looked through several pages of the results and did find three books in English which used "salle Lacaze" (Rooses, Hanson and Hanson and Alex Faris). The last is cited by the article, so it may also have contributed in deciding to use the lower case). But it certainly does not appear to be the usual practice. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now searched books in English for the exact phrase "salle marigny" (see here). None of the hits in English used lower case "salle". This includes Baker's Dictionary of Opera and The Oxford Dictionary of Opera (in their article on the Bouffes-Parisiens), both of which I own and could verity. The only hit using lower case was a book in French. With all these results, I don't see that this is really a very debatable question. The results show that the upper case Salle is used for these three theatres far more frequently in English language sources than the lower case version. Unless there is a reasonable objection I plan to make this change to the article. See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (proper names). --Robert.Allen (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine by me if you want to change it. On reflection, we have a similar situation with 'Théâtre', which I think is consistently capitalized. Please put a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France explaining what you have done so they know about it. There are likely to be articles on towns and cities mentioning Salle This and Salle That. --Kleinzach 23:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to French opera genres in this article[edit]

I note this sentence: "Offenbach rarely used the word "operetta" for his works,[n 16] and called them by a wide range of terms, most frequently "opéra-bouffe", "opéra-comique" and "opérette"." Obviously Offenbach was working in France, in the French opera world, hence he didn't use foreign terms like the Italian/English word 'operetta'. Throughout the article there seems to be a general avoidance of references to French genres. An attempt to re-classify Offenbach's works from a Gilbert and Sullivan perspective, perhaps? Contrary to WP:NPOV? --Kleinzach 10:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple statement of fact, I'd have thought. We call them operettas and he didn't. Tim riley (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? The English? Wikipedia is international. --Kleinzach 00:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is Wikipedia: see List of operettas by Offenbach - Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later: I see you are a frequent contributor to musical articles, and so you may perhaps like to join in the peer review of this article. Tim riley (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether such distinctions are necessary or not. I would be interested in knowing how the major English language references on Offenbach refer to his various stage works. Whatever the sources in English do is probably what we should do in this article. Also the English translations of important biographies should be consulted, such as Siegfried Kracauer's Jacques Offenbach and the Paris of his time (1937, recently republished 2002). 4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grove are careful to refer to La belle Hélène and La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein as opéras bouffes, Orphée aux enfers as an opéra bouffon etc. etc. In any case, Offenbach's own designations are more important that secondary references.--Kleinzach 03:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My French dictionary (Oxford Hachette) translates French opérette as operetta, but doesn't it literally mean a small or short opera? Grove probably bases their genre designations on what was printed on the librettos or scores. Based on Grove's list It appears that the works he called opérette or opérette bouffe were all in one act, so perhaps he was using it to literally mean a short opera, or a short comic opera. Of course there are also other 1-acters that he labelled opéra bouffe or opéra comique, but I did not see any works with more than one act classified as opérette. The OED says English "operetta" was first used in 1770 and originally meant "a short opera, usually of light and humorous character, consisting originally and properly of one act, but now sometimes of two or more". But both Grove Opera and Traubner's book on operetta say he was primarily a composer of operettas and I suspect they also mean most of the longer works as well in the modern more inclusive definition. In the Grove article titled "Operetta" Andrew Lamb specifically states that Offenbach reserved the term opérette for 1-act works, and the term was only expanded to include the longer opéras bouffes in Vienna after 1870. So Offenbach's longer works only came to be called operettas by others. --Robert.Allen (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should personally prefer to follow the original French terms, but there are two problems: first, the authorities with lists of works - Faris, Grove, Gammond etc don't agree with each other on the relevant details; secondly, the existing WP main article is titled "List of operettas by Offenbach". On the first point, note, e.g., that the WP list (based on Grove?) refers to Madame Papillon (1855) as an opérette, whereas Almeida states sans phrase that the term was not in use until 1856. And so on... These are deep waters, Watson. Tim riley (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the WP list appears to agree with Grove Opera. I certainly don't know the particulars for these works by Offenbach. But I do know from Wild and Charlton's rather thorough research on works performed at the Opéra-Comique that often the first edition scores and libretti published in conjunction with premieres will not agree with one another on genre designations. Those authors carefully list and cite each when there are differences, but few authors bother with this and appear to just use whichever source they happened to consult. (Andrew Lamb, who prepared the Offenbach list in Grove Opera, carefully lists each source that he used. That is certainly not always done.) It is also possible in many cases that the composer is not the one who specified the genre, but that it was inserted by the publishers, accounting for the differences between libretti and scores, which often have different publishers. It is likely a bit risky to automatically assume that Offenbach is the one who selected these terms. But in any case, we might want to slightly rewrite your note on this to better reflect what Andrew Lamb says in his article on operettas. I also noticed that the Wikipedia article on Operetta does not deal with these issues concerning definitions as clearly as Lamb does. In my quick reading of it, it did not appear to mention that the definition of operetta has changed over time, and that the more recent usage has been applied retroactively to earlier works. --Robert.Allen (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your grasp of this is hugely impressive, and if you have time and inclination to revise my text as you suggest I shall be very grateful. Tim riley (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove list is based, AFAIK, on Offenbach's designations as published in the 'livret de censure' presented to the censors. ( See here ). The choice of genre description depended on the legal status of the work, and the venue, as well as the form. The "List of operettas by Offenbach" follows Grove. (I know because I compiled it.) 'Operettas' is used as a convenient English umbrella word in the title. (As always, the article itself serves to define the usage.) In some cases, Offenbach revised the work and changed the designation. In general, genres evolve and gradually change. (The development of opera genres in France is particularly complicated, see List of opera genres.) --Kleinzach 00:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting. Thanks for the link. But did Lamb have advance access to this edition, which appears to have been published in 2003? His list was already in the 1992 Grove Opera. Lamb lists a thematic catalog by Almeida (OCLC 64036914) in his bibliography, but that does not seem to be in many libraries. That's a bit confusing, too. WorldCat lists ISBN 9780193152670, but doesn't list any libraries that I see, and the ISBN doesn't turn up much for me. Amazon.com (USA) says it's 1,168 pages and was published by OUP in the US in 2001 (here), but they don't have a copy. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was never published. The WP article Antonio de Almeida (conductor) says he died before it was published. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An IP changed the wording from "published posthumously" to "remained unpublished" this edit. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP also made extensive edits to the article Andrew Lamb (writer) and added the information that Lamb assisted Almeida on the thematic catalog. --Robert.Allen (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering about that catalog. A shame it's unavailable as it'd be very very helpful. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. --Robert.Allen (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should get in touch with Andrew Lamb? --Kleinzach 07:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grand opera[edit]

This expression appears five times in the article. I can't speak for Die Rheinnixen, but The Tales of Hoffmann is not a grand opera. A grand opera (read the article) has recitatives and a ballet. The Tales of Hoffmann, as envisaged by Offenbach, has spoken dialogue and no ballet. "Serious opera" would be an acceptable replacement. --GuillaumeTell 17:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was performed at the Opéra-Comique, not noted for producing grand opera. (According to Lacombe, it didn't appear at the Opéra until 1974.) Andrew Lamb in his article on the work in Grove Opera says Offenbach "seemingly regarded it as a last chance for recognition as a composer of serious opera." By 1881 the Opéra-Comique had already produced some noted "serious" operas. Carmen (1875) is almost always mentioned in this regard. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Traubner in The New Penguin Opera Guide mentions that Offenbach "sanctioned the replacement of his planned recitatives with spoken dialogue". Offenbach may have originally intended a more grand opera style, but after Carvalho accepted the work for production at the Opéra-Comique, Offenbach apparently changed his mind. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead with this, except for the one reference to "French grand opera", that I was not sure about. GT, please take a look at that. Tim, feel free to modify as needed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Faris (pp. 203–204) on Offenbach's original intention: "It was to be a grand opera without spoken dialog." --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Lamb also says that recitatives (together with a baritone Hoffmann and a lyric, rather than coloratura, soprano) were Offenbach's original choice. No ballet, though! I'd still like to know how serious an opera the Rheinnixen was - I'd assumed that it was a parody of Wagner. Ss: the "French grand opera" is a quote from Tim Ashley, so that should stay. --GuillaumeTell 21:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Die Rheinnixen is a Romantic opera not a parody, see here. --Kleinzach 07:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The overture to Die Rheinnixen, which is all I have heard from that work, starts off very differently from the usual exuberant Offenbach prelude, with the familiar soft strains of the Barcarolle, later recycled (along with two other numbers) in Hoffmann. The orchestration is, if my ears do not deceive me, just the same as the familiar orchestral version as recorded by Beecham, Karajan et al. Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN for Harding[edit]

The ISBN for Harding is invalid according to Wikipedia's Book sources. (This is why I replaced it with the ISBN-13.) It is my understanding that ISBN-13s are preferred to ISBN-10s in any case. Or so I have been admonished by some other editors. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the books listed under "sources" are using ISBN 10s. Featured articles have recently been promoted with all the books listed using ISBN-10s. So, let's find the correct ISBN-10. I note that Both Amazon and Google Books give this ISBN-10. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found a different ISBN-10 somewhere else, I forget where. This new one seems to work. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cologne is not a Prussian city[edit]

I tried to clarify why JO was 'born Prussian' but the links were removed. It's important to explain the post-1815 history that resulted in Cologne being Prussian (the capital of the Province of Jülich-Cleves-Berg) at the time JO was born. The general reader will be aware that Cologne is in the extreme west of Germany, whereas Prussia is in the east. --Kleinzach 07:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it important, I wonder? Those interested in German history will, of course, be fascinated by "the post-1815 history that resulted in Cologne being Prussian (the capital of the Province of Jülich-Cleves-Berg)", but I think this excursus is more confusing than helpful for readers interested in Offenbach. Cologne was a Prussian city at the time of Offenbach's birth, and Offenbach was a subject of the king of Prussia until he was granted French nationality. Perhaps footnote the geo-historical detail? Happy to go along with any consensus on this, of course. Meanwhile, in reverting to the less complicated version I have avoided using the term "in Prussia", and stuck to "the Prussian city of..." Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Later: now footnoted - see what you think. Tim riley (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley " 'Is it important, I wonder? ": Yes, it is important, because this is an encyclopedia and it's supposed to be correct in its details. We now have the sentence: "Offenbach was born . . . in the Prussian city of Cologne". However Cologne is not a Prussian city. It's in the Rhineland. One of the problems with dumbing down articles is that you end up making mistakes. I indicated before how we could indicate that the Kingdom of Prussia absorbed part of the Rhineland (in the course of its eventual re-untification of Germany). This should not have been removed, though I guess this is par for the course. --Kleinzach 01:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Oh, I know where Cologne is; my family background is from those parts. It was however, a Prussian city at the time of Offenbach's birth. A similar question of nomenclature arises with e.g. Alsace and Lorraine in the periods after 1871. Dumbing down? Rather an offensive remark, and suggestive of a certain WP:OWN problem on your part. I note that the article as it stood when I began expanding it (20,526 bytes as opposed to more than 78,000 now) after your 168 edits did not say where Cologne was other than that it was German. Tantrums on this page are in revealing contrast with the helpful comments and, dare I say it, praise on the peer review page, where it is still not too late for you to add constructive comments if you care to join in. You could see if other reviewers agree with you that the mention of the Province of Jülich-Cleves-Berg is a desirable addition. Tim riley (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNCIVIL. Disappointing that addressing the accuracy of the article is a lesser priority than ad hominem attacks, but then this is not the first time. --Kleinzach 08:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry! I'm not offended by your suggestions that I'm biased or dumbing down, and there really is no need to apologise. As you rightly say, the thing is to get the article right. Tim riley (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the article right means accepting corrections — not reverting them for reasons that have nothing to do with the encyclopedia.--Kleinzach 00:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Shall we cite Harding ("Prussia"), Pourvouyeur ("Prusse"), Yon ("Prusse"), Gammond (oddly, no country mentioned), or Lamb (reviewing Yon – "Prussian")? Tim riley (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to read the article on the history of Cologne:


I think that makes it clear why it's offensive - and ignorant — to call Cologne a 'Prussian city' without sensible qualification, especially as the passage in question here is in the main part of the article, not the lead. --Kleinzach 10:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is qualified: the information about the province is footnoted (at present) and will be restored to the main text if there is a consensus to that effect. The fact remains that the sources refer to Cologne as Prussian. You may disagree with them, but see Wikipedia:Verifiability – Tim riley (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not qualified in the text. The notes are for supplementary, non-essential information. The reader can't be expected to go through them in order to get an accurate reading of the article. --Kleinzach 10:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, if there is a consensus, the information can be moved to the text. I hope it won't be, as I think it is most questionable from a WP:NPOV standpoint to feature prominently information that not one of the sources thinks it necessary to mention at all. If it were essential information, can anyone rationally conceive that it would be omitted by every one of: Faris, Gammond, Grove, Harding, Pourvoyeur and Yon? Even the German books on Offenbach, including the mighty Henseler study, don't mention it. – Tim riley (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are all repeating ourselves here (this has also been mentioned at the Peer Review), but IMO to include historical/political information about Cologne in the text would be tangential and distracting to readers of this article. Any readers who are curious about the identification of Cologne as a Prussian city will see the footnote there and be able to read it. The footnote is serving its purpose correctly. Unless one of the many people who are watching this page cares enough about this issue to comment, it seems like Kleinzach's concern has been thoroughly discussed here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable numbers[edit]

GuillaumeTell has suggested at the peer review page on Offenbach that a section on notable arias and other numbers might be useful. All suggestions for inclusion gratefully received there. (The sub-heading on the PR page is Famous arias near the bottom of the page. Tim riley (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation and cultural influence[edit]

I added a new paragraph with some information that had appeared in early drafts. Feel free to edit or remove if you feel that it adds nothing. Happy editing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. In the earlier version it seemed disproportionately long, but in your trimmed edition, and in the context of the expanded article, I think it is valuable and proportionate. What do other regular contributors think? Tim riley (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, do you know of anything else like Zola's book Nana, where an important book, film or other item of broad cultural interest has a substantial plot reference to, parody of, or other use of Offenbach's work? Some movies that use entire Offenbach pieces in their soundtracks are listed here. Offenbach was a character [phttp://www.imdb.com/character/ch0064875/ in these films]. There was a TV miniseries called "Les folies Offenbach". This seems to be a documentary on Offenbach: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338875/ These Broadway shows and these and this have used Offenbach's music extensively. Which of these references might be important enough to mention? There must be lots of pieces of music that extensively quote Offenbach music or parody it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sondheim pastiches him (quite well) in "Please Hello". (Incidentally, I've been asked to look over Sondheim at PR: do look in if you're interested.) The Valse des rayons from Le Papillon achieved independent success, not to say notoriety, as the Apache Dance famously performed by Mistinguett with Max Dearly before WWI. Nothing else comes immediately to mind. Shall ponder. Tim riley (talk) 07:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This book came up in my search: Senelick, Laurence. "The Cultural Influence of Jacques Offenbach" (2008), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521871808. If you stop by the library, please take a look to see whether there are additional good examples in it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll most certainly order this for my next trip to the British Library – probably next week. Looks a highly promising source. – Tim riley (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very odd! The book isn't in the British Library catalogue, nor in Worldcat. Yet Googling proves that it exists. I am baffled. (I have a copy of a 1990 article by Senelick entitled "Offenbach and Chekhov; Or, La Belle Yelena", but I didn't find it helpful for the WP article.) Tim riley (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works – operettas / texts and word setting / parody and influences / Other works[edit]

42 “commentators generally refer to all but two”. Allowing for Fantasio and Robinson Crusoé, this could change to “all but a few”

Fine with me. Please change as you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

43. A sentence on his compositional method would be very helpful. If you can access this TV film [1], Keck demonstrates Offenbach's manner of composition using a section of autograph of Orphée aux Enfers. In his notes to the CD ‘Ballade Symphonique’ (476 8999) Keck describes this in words (I can type it here). Also the fact that he constantly altered his scores (again there is a Keck quote for this) is worth saying, and perhaps also that even when he escaped to Étretat he usually composed in a noisy environment, with visitors talking, children playing etc.

The last bit, about his liking for working amid noise, I knew, and can find citations for somewhere. Alas, the TV film is non disponible in England (revenge for Agincourt, possibly). If you like to add something based on the CD notes, please do. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the original text I mentioned (which obviously needs changing for the article): ‘The composer’s working method is now familiar to us: first of all, Offenbach wrote down the numerous melodies inspired by his new libretto in large notebooks which he rarely parted with – certain almost-illegible sketches of La Haine were even jotted down in his carriage, which he had outfitted with a worktable. Just as often it happened that he made annotations (musical or literary) directly on his librettists’ manuscripts. Then, taking a sheet of music paper intended for the instrumentation, he first wrote the vocal parts in the centre, then on the last two lines added a piano accompaniment, sometimes limited, sometimes quite developed. It also happened that he might cast several attempts at orchestration on the paper. Finally, once he was sure the work was to be given, he sat down to orchestrating. To gain time, he also used a codified system, easy to understand with a bit of experience.’ (The reference is: Keck, Jean-Christophe (translated by John Taylor Tuttle). Offenbach, an oeuvre boasting more than 600 works. Booklet essay for ‘Ballade Symphonique’, CD 476 8999, Universal Classics France, 2006) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

44. (Croquefer ) “one duet consists entirely of quotations” – I think ‘consists mostly’ is more accurate.

Perhaps best to drop the adverb completely? Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safest to keep the adverb. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tim. Neither "mostly" nor "entirely" seem to help. Better with just saying that it "consists of quotations". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

45 “Die Rheinnixen remains largely forgotten”. Since that was written it has been premiered in several countries around Europe and professionally recorded. ‘Die R was only revived in the 2000s’

Hmm. Yes, though not one music lover in a million will have heard the piece even now, I think. Fine to rephrase, but we must not lead readers to think it has been widely rediscovered. May I suggest a tweak to your redraft, and propose "Die R was not revived until the 2000s"? Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

46. The use of Ashley’s quote makes it sound that there is little of Offenbach in the piece!

You should see what Ssilvers and I have put about a composer's influences in the article on Arthur Sullivan! Offenbach is getting off lightly. By all means add a counterbalancing quote if you have one. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will look for another. In relation to Sullivan, GB Shaw has a quote relating to Tannhäuser, that for Sullivan, Offenbach was his Venus and Mendelssohn his Elisabeth. (I hope to put more comments on in a while) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have Shaw's complete music criticism in three vols. Shall investigate. Meanwhile, as I have said before, there is no rush. Please add more when it is convenient to you. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

47. “wrote only one full-length ballet”. As mentioned above in 32, perhaps ‘stand-alone’ would be better pending more information…

Very good point. Please alter. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

48. “Other orchestral compositions include a piece in 17th-century style with cello solo, which became a standard work of the cello repertoire.” This is teasing – what is it?

I'll rummage in the sources. I think I got this from Gammond, but will locate and add. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

49. “50 non-operatic songs between 1838 and 1854” - Can we add the settings of Jean de La Fontaine – Offenbach pioneered setting the fables (Lecocq, Gounod and others followed) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, it really should have been you, not I, who took on the upgrading of this article. You patently know much more about the subject than I do. I am happy to yield to your superior knowledge on this point. Please alter ad lib. Tim riley (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is it, for now! I’ve probably missed a few things. I am not sure that I could have upgraded it – you have done it very well, but it is a fascinating subject and I am sure a another expert could help do more. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The André Gill caricature used here appears to be of 1866, not 1874. (See this page for full details: [2]) where it says it appeared in the weekly La Lune, for 4 novembre 1866, Nouvelle série, n°35. Maybe the caption should point out that the composer on his cello is surrounded by his characters, including the dog Barkouf? Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salle Choiseul[edit]

26. “and existing short operas by Adolphe Adam…” the premiere of Adam’s very last work (Pantins de Violette) was at the BP, but which were other existing pieces by him?

No others, as far as I know. The sentence is nonetheless correct. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was not clear. The sentence says that ‘existing’ short operas by Adam etc were presented. If the only opera by Adam presented at the BP was the newly commissioned Les pantins de Violette, then it was not existing, it was new, therefore the sentence is incorrect. (It would be nice to mention Offenbach’s commission, as it nicely shows his generosity to a fellow composer – one who had genuinely been banned from the Opéra-Comique for a few years!)
I can't agree with you on this point. The sentence says "...existing short operas by Adolphe Adam and Gioachino Rossini in new productions", which is true. If it bothers you, I suppose we could say "...an existing short opera by Adolphe Adam and another by Gioachino Rossini in new productions", but that doesn't strike me as an improvement. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Later – my apologies: my brain has just caught up with my eyes, and I have belatedly realised the import of your comment. Please ignore my immediately preceding drivel. I'll have a look in the sources and report back. Tim riley (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really care about Adolphe Adam in this sentence? It seemed to just add confusion; I deleted the mention. It appeared that this left a redundancy regarding Rossini, so I cut it down to one. If I misunderstood, please try again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the article mentioned Gastinel, Delibes, Adam, Rossini and Mozart (although not other composers whose works were performed). Adam was one of the renowned opéra-comique composers and this was his last work; I think the article intended to illustrate that Offenbach was presenting new works, commisions and revivals by famous masters, and I don’t understand the reason for deleting him while leaving in others. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[left] What was written there was too complicated and unnecessarily long. What if you just said that Offenbach was presenting new works, as well as existing works by such masters as Rossini and Mozart? As I said above, you can put Adam back in if you think that mentioning him is helpful, but 99% of readers will not have heard of either Gastinel or Adam, so I would take them out. If you are going to put their names in, I think you should explain why you are doing so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the composers mentioned here were those in Faris (I don’t have his book). It would be OK just to say that new works were presented, although given that Giselle is still performed a lot, non-recognition of Adam may only be as low as 95%. But if there is no way to solve the complication then perhaps he should go as well. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

27. “Offenbach revered Mozart above all other composers. He had an ambition to present Mozart's neglected one-act comic opera Der Schauspieldirektor at the Bouffes-Parisiens, and he went to Vienna to find the score.” I think it was more a question of trying to get some respectability for the BP. He had first tried to acquire Le Devin du village from the Opéra, and after that asked Rossini for his piece, and then celebrating the centenary of Mozart with L'Impressario (Yon 172-5). According to Yon, four numbers were already published in Paris (Offenbach used three), and Offenbach acquired another four used in the production in Vienna: but did Offenbach actually go to Vienna in person to get hold of the extra numbers?

Faris writes, "But after some research in Vienna Offenbach brought off a coup that won over some former critics. In the Revue les Deux Mondes Scudo wrote, 'Much will be forgiven M. Offenbach for laying his hand on an almost unknown masterpiece…'" Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I have combined two issues. (1) Vienna - Although from your quote Faris appears to imply that Offenbach was in Vienna to find the score (or the parts of it he didn’t have), Yon in the pages I quoted above does not mention a visit, but that he tracked them down (although he sets out much else that the energetic Offenbach did at this time!) (2) Motivation – as I mention, Yon writes, after covering the 50 performances of Impresario “Le but recherché par Offenbach est atteint: l’opérette de Mozart a conféré au théâtre du passage Choiseul un supplément de respectabilité” - an important theme worth mentioning.
Now I look again, Faris's phrasing can be read two ways. I have read it as meaning that Offenbach researched in Vienna, but it can also be read as meaning "after other people's research in Vienna." I don't, on reflection, recall seeing any other biographer's mention of research in Vienna by Offenbach in person. Perhaps discretion would be the better part of valour here. There is no great need at this point to mention Vienna at all, and we could just lose the words "and he went to Vienna to find the score". As to Offenbach's motivation, I have no strong views either way, and will be happy with your revised wording if you care to do the honours. En passant, while on Offenbach's motivations, I have not mentioned the theory that his competition for new composers wasn't as disinterested as it seemed, and that he was trying to avert charges of cornering the market in comic opera. It is an interesting theory, but I think it is too much of a digression from the main narrative for our present article. Tim riley (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again at Yon, and also at his separate article "La création du théâtre des Bouffes-Parisiens (1855-1862), ou la difficile naissance de l'opérette" originally in the Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine, and it seems to me that it is really only his personal view that Offenbach put on The Impresario to get brownie points rather than for love of Mozart. There's nothing much to back the view up. Yon's personal views are, of course, to be much respected, but are not conclusive, I suggest. Tim riley (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kracauer has something similar: ‘...so he took advantage of the opportunity of occasionally producing works by famous authors, thus compelling those critics who had so far ignored him to pay attention to his theatre’. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28. “His disquisition was a preliminary to the announcement” – could this be simpler, eg ‘He announced’

It could be simpler, but I am rather attached the phrasing. Naturally, if there is a consensus to the contrary it can be changed, but it sailed through peer review unmolested. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

29. performances at St James’s Theatre in London “was a success but did not cause a sensation”. I don’t know how one measures a success against a sensation; according to Yon the original two-week stay at St James was extended to a month and a half (20 May-14 July) - Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am trying to make here is that this was a good solid success, but not yet the rage that Offenbach later became in London. I originally wrote "furore" but was outvoted at peer review. Tim riley (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the word sensation is very clear, and this word was much debated at peer review. I made a small tweak that I think is better, yes? Cg, are you saying that the success is being understated? If so, it could be "was a solid success but did not cause the sensation...". Otherwise, I would leave it alone. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's an improvement, thanks. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last years[edit]

39 Maybe at this point the article can go into his health and how it affected his work. p517 of Yon he had an operation for a carbuncle on his hand as well as gout which prevented him travelling to London

Well all right, as long as we don't go into excessive detail. The article is already 83,912 bytes - and the MoS (Wikipedia:Article size) says that articles over 60KB probably should be divided. Will you do the honours? Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

40 “The opera was [completed] and orchestrated at the request of the Offenbach family” This is a nice chance to mention again poor Auguste, I suggest. ‘The orchestration, and subsequent recitatives were completed by Ernest Guiraud, closely assisted by Auguste’. This is referenced in an article by Keck in the Avant-Scene guide to Hoffmann.

Good. Will you add? I haven't got that book. Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to have noticed this before. I am not convinced by the mention of Auguste. We have not established that Auguste was a musician of any kind. Now you have him supervising Guiraud while still a teenager. Did he supervise him, or assist him? I think you need to add a footnote to explain Auguste's musical background. On the other hand, if Auguste was not important to the project, I think it would be much better not to mention him, as it leads to more questions. Finally, since we haven't mentioned Auguste since 1862, the reader will not even remember who he is, so you need to say "Offenbach's son, Auguste". -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Auguste is mentioned thus by Keck « Offenbach disparu, sa famille, représentée par son fils Auguste-Jacques, compositeur lui aussi, décide de faire appel à un ami » and « Auguste Offenbach surveille de très près les travaux de son ami et participe activement a l’élaboration de cette version » (Vienna). Page 621 of Yon « Herminie laisse Auguste s’occuper seul du destin des Contes d’Hoffmann » So this is more clear than saying the Offenbach family and worth mentioning Auguste. (By the way according to Yon they didn't even use the recitatives in Vienna... so it is even more complicated) Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to clarify. As I understand surveille, it means to monitor, rather than to supervise, no? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much difference there is between monitor and supervise. My main reason for proposing the change was that Auguste was the only member of the family either supervising Guiraud or actively involved in getting the score onto the stage, so the current text seems fine, otherwise it means a lot of detail. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

41 His cause of death was certified as = He died from heart failure caused by acute gout.

I remember that I had a particular reason for this slightly cautious phrasing, but unfortunately I have forgotten what that reason was. Please redraw as you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian-born?[edit]

I see this issue has come up again. See my detailed comments here.

Calling Offenbach 'Prussian-born' is contrary to the MOS states "Nationality should refer to national identity, in other words the national group with which the person identified, not the state of which the person was a citizen or subject."

The New Grove Dictionary of Opera calls Offenbach as "French composer of German origin." (Vol.3 p 653). (Opera articles normally follow Grove usage.) --Kleinzach 07:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an extract from the article on the history of Cologne:


I think that makes it clear why this is a significant issue. --Kleinzach 07:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, Kleinzach. Nice to have you taking part again. Happy to leave this particular point unresolved until FAC, though heaven knows when we'll be ready to get it there. Tim riley (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're actually in agreement. It's incoherent to talk of a German identity in the terms you both agree on, as his birth long predates Bismarck's 1871 declaration of a German //Reich//, and neither he nor his region identified with the increasing dominance: indeed, his identity may have more than a little of its foundations in the Rheinland Fasching, which excels, indeed revels in, the contempt of Prussian militarism. It's not alone, Munich and the South are entirely as one: Cherubino is perhaps the epitome of the image of the pouf-soldat. I'll counter the ostensible anachronism with the thought that France knew Blucher's Prussians only too well in the fall of the First Empire: to this day the foremost of the persiflage Cologne Carnival Guilds are the Rote Funken, the Red Sparks, commemorating the City Guard which was wiped out in that period. I make this point to emphasise the mistake made in identifying the archbishop with the City: he most specifically did NOT have authority there, indeed was to all intents and purposes as excluded from access to the territory as the Queen of England is from the House of Commons and City of London: protocol requires that she, and her representatives, ask permission before entering either. In the annual Queen's Speech, the door to the Chamber of the Commons is actually ceremonially slammed closed in the face of Black Rod, her Herald sent to summon them to be present in the House of Lords.
Had the German states not been equally involved in the wave of revolution of the 1848 period, another European war would quite possibly have resulted, but the fruit of the economic damage caused was every bit as devastating: each generation had to have it's say (1815: 1848: 1871: 1914: 1939 - draw your own conclusions, you cannot fight a war with an unstable economy). I'll also establish my authority on that matter with my rank as a staffer of The Western European Union, which put a stop to that, as recognised in the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize (check the Press Release for the full explanation): that simultaneously preempts me from editing myself, on NPOV grounds. Is Brexit the start of yet more of the same? Only time will tell.

Need to redistribute images[edit]

People have recently added two new images that are both good images, but the sections to which they have been added are now rather bursting with images. Can anyone come up with a sensible way to move these further down into the sections with no images? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has added an image – rather a pleasing one – of Offenbach's Villa Orphée. Unfortunately it is inserted at a point where the text is consequently sandwiched between the new image and the existing one (a poster for Orphée. This won't survive FAC scrutiny, I suspect, as it violates the MoS [[3]]. One of the two will have to go, and I'd rather keep the poster than the villa. (If we decide to keep the villa, the caption will need some remedial work.) What do others think? Tim riley (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested above, perhaps the image can be moved down to a section that doesn't have any? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for launching into the subject without spotting that you were ahead of me.) By all means have a go. I can't at first glance see where the Villa pic would comfortably fit if not in its present position, but equally I don't want to see the Orphée poster banished from the relevant section of prose. Tim riley (talk) 20:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It's a great image and should be retained. Move it down I say!. -- Cassianto (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...also, was JO living at Villa Orphée in 1865? It's just a thought but if he was, could we not do a multi image with Offenbach and his child together with the Orphée picture? -- Cassianto (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't in permanent residence – it was his out of town retreat – but I think your suggestion is well worth a go, if you have time and disposition. Tim riley (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[left]I think as long as the year is the same for both it may satisfy a combined image. This will also free up some space and (hopefully) prevent text squeeze. I will give it a go. -- Cassianto (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about a combined image, Cassianto. Try it, but the poster may be better off by itself. Not sure. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have done it (see email). Looking at it, I'm not too sure either. I chose to combine the residence and JO and child as per the rather tenuous link that they had the house as a family getaway at around the same time as the image of JO and his daughter was taken. Feel free to play around. I won't be offended if it is decided against. All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be nice to include La Villa Orphée; if it isn't used here, it is difficult to think which other article it might be placed. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, but we need to add to the text some brief info about the dates that Offenbach lived at the villa. Can you give info and a ref? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[left] I moved the Strauss image down, but it looks a bit awkward where I've put it near the bottom. Any better ideas? -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would start by moving Strauss over to the left. The problem arises when it results in a bit of text squeeze due to the Punch image. There will be no alternative other than to keep it as it is. Shrinking the Punch image makes the image text hard to read, so that is out of the question I suppose. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh! Moving the Strauss-v-Offenbach image to its present position leaves a five inch gap of white space in the text on my (wide-ish) laptop (though on the small screen of my steam-driven old desktop it's not quite so bad). I really wonder if keeping the image of this piece of real estate is worth all this disruption. What, in truth, does it tell the reader about Offenbach? Tim riley (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have a problem on my screen. In any case there are still some of my changes and additions ‘pending’. I would vote to have it in; there are no other buildings in the article. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the Strauss-v-Offenbach image. It is not even clear to me what the image means, and we already have an image of Strauss in the article. Just because we find a contemporary cartoon does not mean we must include it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Camille Erlanger at the Bouffes in 1859?[edit]

Camille Erlanger is cited as having contributed to the 1859 season at the Bouffes-Parisiens. I'm no expert on Erlanger, but every reference I've found to him indicates he was born in 1863. Pyrrhura.molinae (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spotting it - it should be Jules Erlanger, born 1830, according to Yon. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination[edit]

Would any interested editor object to my nominating the article as a candidate for Good Article status? Tim riley (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome a GA nom – it's about time for this fine article. I would be happy to be a co-nominator. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I don't think the GAN process (unlike FA) allows for formal "nominators" or "co-noms", but I'll put the article up for GA, and closely consult you (and any other interested editor who would like to be involved) during the review. With such a big article there are sure to be lots of questions before it makes GA. Tim riley (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I had forgotten. Looking forward to helping you respond to the reviewer's comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Jacques Offenbach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. Let's go through things in order

  1. Well-written: This is a quite well-written article. There's two bits that should be fixed:
    1. The rather strange punctuation of "M. Choufleuri restera chez lui le . . ."
    2. This paragraph, which is a bit of a trainwreck of ideas. Honestly, almost all of this is repeating previous sections... Actually, I'll get this one. It's probably easier to fix it than to explain what I want. I've redistributed he material, cutting one sentence that contained information that had already appeared twice in the article. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Offenbach's earliest operettas were one-act pieces for small casts. More than 30 of these were presented before his first full-scale "opéra bouffon", Orphée aux enfers, in 1858, and he composed over 20 more of them during the rest of his career.[4][138] Lamb, following the precedent of Henseler's 1930 study of the composer, divides the one-act pieces into five categories: "(i) country idylls; (ii) urban operettas; (iii) military operettas; (iv) farces; and (v) burlesques or parodies."[139] Following the success of Orphée aux enfers, Offenbach enjoyed his greatest success in the 1860s. As throughout his composing career, he produced a large number of works, some of which caught the public fancy more than others. Most of his greatest successes from the decade have remained among his best known: La belle Hélène (1864), La vie parisienne (1866), La Grande-Duchesse de Gérolstein (1867), and La Périchole (1868).[4] In Offenbach's last decade, he took note of a change in public taste: a simpler, more romantic style was now preferred. Harding writes that Lecocq had successfully moved away from satire and parody, returning to "the genuine spirit of opéra-comique and its peculiarly French gaiety."[140] Offenbach followed suit in a series of 20 operettas; the musician and writer Antonio de Almeida names the finest of these as La fille du tambour-major (1879).[126]
  2. Verifiable with no original research: The Barkouf section could use having its source made unambiguous. Please fix this. (I've marked it with a citation needed). I've also marked two other points. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Broad in its coverage: Indeed, the main issue with this article is that it covers what turns out to be such a wide subject, but it handles itself with aplomb, and definitely passes here.
  4. Neutral: ✓ Pass
  5. Stable: ✓ Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: ✓ Pass. I didn't check every image, but I didn't see any likely to be unfree in the first place.

So, long story short, fix those three issues, post on my talk page, and we can promote this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed M. Choufleur's dots. (I think the author of his article is French, and there are many little ways in which French and English punctuation differ. Dealt with here by simple piping.)
  • All three "citation needed" tags now attended to and removed. Rather odd that we overlooked these three bits until now, and as well to have them all properly attributed. Tim riley (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's surprisingly easy to miss that kind of thing - the article is long and complicated, so you can miss things like that easily unless you specifically look. As for M. Choufleur, I mainly just wanted to make sure those were ellipses, and not some complicated French thing. My French really is terrible, I'm afraid.
But, anyway, it's a strong article; I rather think you could go straight to FAC from here, although doing to standard pre-FAC peer-review wouldn't hurt. You've done excellent work on it, and I'm very happy to promote it to GA. Good luck at FA! Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your expeditious and eagle-eyed review. I shall convene a council of war to consider FAC. Much in your debt meanwhile. Tim riley (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diaries of Offenbach[edit]

Where should "Orpheus in America" be discussed in this article? It's the English translation of Offenbach's diaries of his 1876 US trip. Had he published them himself while alive, then they would be one of his "works." Published posthumously, from his own diaries (and thus in his own hand), this is one of the strongest (or most interesting) sources available. What's the appropriate placement/reference for this book in this article? Thanks -- ResearcherQ (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's more of a further reading. It's an excellent source, but kind of awkward to put in anywhere else. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam. If the diaries were popular, we could say so, but as I understand it, they were not published until 1957 in English translation, so unless we use them as a source for information about the US trip, the best place for it is "Further reading". -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Je suis d'accord. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of the subject[edit]

The memoir Musical Memories by composer Camille Saint-Saëns, now public-domain, contains an apparent photograph of Offenbach as an illustration. The book is available as Project Gutenberg etext #16459. This might be a good addition to the article, as it resembles the main image of the composer but is of much higher quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnificat (talk • contribs) 13:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1.2 Cello Virtuoso[edit]

At the beginning of each of three paragraphs Offenbach "returns to Paris". Did he return 3 times?--dunnhaupt (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Offenbach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jacques Offenbach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacques Offenbach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the Infernal Gallop?[edit]

Or the Can-Can? Why not? 213.205.240.255 (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might care to read the article: fully covered. Tim riley talk 11:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacques_Offenbach/Archive_2&oldid=1222724984"