Talk:Der Rosenkavalier/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Hogarth's The Countess's Morning Levee photo - consensus achieved

I agree with both User:Softlavender and User:Michael Bednarek that the present image is indeed far better: it is certainly lighter. When clicked upon, it becomes a full size image, just as the previous one did. Seen side-by-side, the difference is obvious. I think that we have consensus here. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Translation

This page was translated after a request was placed on Wikipedia:Translation into English. Here is the original request:

Article: de:Der Rosenkavalier
Corresponding English-language article: Der Rosenkavalier
Worth doing because: One of this notable composer's most popular works (although more frequently performed in concert form in the US)
Originally Requested by: Ellsworth 18:58, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
Status: Complete. I omitted the 'notable performances' section for now, as I don't know how relevant they are to an English-speaking audience --HappyDog 00:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Other notes: If the synposis linked to in the German article is public domain, perhaps that could be made part of the English article.
In the meantime I have linked to an english synopsis. --HappyDog

FYI: this is currently being performed at the Royal Opera House in Covent Garden, London. --HappyDog 00:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Marschallin

I found a definition of the term "Marschallin" (the wife of a Field Marshal) on the net and added it to the article. It's something about this opera that has always puzzled me. - The Unknown Wikipedia Guy

Is "Marie Therese" really the Marschallin's name, or is that just Octavian's pet name for her? She isn't given that name in my copy of the score. Herbivore 23:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's her real name. Octavian's pet name for her, used during Act 1, is "Bichette" (make of that what you will!). Her pet name for him is "Quinquin". --GuillaumeTell 17:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

French: 'Bichette' comes from 'biche', a doe, i.e., a little doe. It is a typical old fashioned term of endearment. People of the Marschalin and Octavien's class would have mixed French and German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuillaumeTell (talk • contribs) 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Silver Rose

The silver rose that is presented by octavian to sophie as a signal of their intended marriage - is this a tradition? I cannot find any references to earlier than the opera, and I wondered if the idea was created for the opera, or if it existed beforehand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gaffermonkey (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

I've read that it was Hofmannsthal's invention -- but that it was so convincing that afterwards people sincerely claimed that that it was an actual tradition. Can't remember where I read this, so it probably can't go in the article. Herbivore 21:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read that too. Also perhaps worth noting somewhere is Strauss's use of the Viennese-type waltz in the opera, which is anachronistic (the waltz became popular in the nineteenth century) and which some have said was a deliberate joke on the composer's part bearing in mind the setting (Vienna) and his waltz-composing (unrelated) namesakes. CW, 5 April 2007

Trivia

I think the librettist intended the Marshallin's name to be Maria Teresa, the same as the Empress. Octavian calls her Therese because using Frenchified names was considered chic at that time in history. (just as, in WAR AND PEACE, the central Russian character likes to be called Pierre rather than Pyotr)

What is the source of the statement that the opera is usually done in concert form in the U.S.? I have never heard of a concert performance of this opera.

Some mention ought to be made of Strauss's unusual decision to write the "male" lead (Octavian) for a female singer; this is the "trouser role" tradition taken to an extreme. CharlesTheBold 04:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am pondering an inobtrusive way to work it in, if only for the purpose of pointing out the double-cross-dressing. The obvious (when witnessed) physical comedy of a (well-corsetted) female mezzo-soprano playing a young man who in turn is disguised as a female chambermaid - to my mind - deserves a fair mention because it would not be obvious to anyone who had not seen a production of the opera. --MuséeRouge (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Only recently, did I realize that Der Rosenkavalier was debuted about a decade before Ravel's La Valse. It then seemed that the Rosenkavalier had inspired Ravel's work. After more reading, I have come to a different conclusion. I sure would appreciate a musicological discussion of the mutual influences between Strauss and Ravel.

Listening to a recent performance of Der Rosencavalier by the Met on PBS, I find the waltzes to be original but certainly not revolutionary. What I think happened is that Ravel composed the revolutionary La Valse without much influence from Strauss. When Strauss arranged his Waltz suite he was influenced by La Valse. Thinking that the suite came out before La Valse, it was easy to jump to the conclusion that Strauss, and not Ravel, was the revolutionary in that respect. ~~

Short synopsis?

I'm not sure what practice is on opera synopses, but it'd be great to see a one- or two-sentence 'blurb' in the opening para about the plot. The existing synopsis is dauntingly long for someone hoping for a quick glance. Twang (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not easy to summarise this long opera in two sentences. I've added a paragraph in the lead - comments welcome! See also a recent discussion about this matter on the Talk Page of the Opera Project, where the consensus was that short plot summaries can often be helpful. --GuillaumeTell 17:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the synopsis summary idea works - especially at this length. It looks like some kind of edit misplacement (How did that get there???) after the lead. A section heading would make it look better, but then common sense would dictate joining the synopsis summary to the synopsis . . . Maybe this kind of thing belongs in the Simple English WP as an alternative to the full synopsis? --Klein zach 00:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you make these points on the Opera Project page? And see if you can devise a more concise summary of the Rosenkavalier plot, too? --GuillaumeTell 01:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Dowry vs. dower

In the description of Ochs' transaction with the Notary, I would argue that the article should say dower rather than dowry. Ochs says Morgengabe, and the comedy comes from his asking for something he is supposed to be giving to his bride. Further, it's an additional highlight on Ochs' egocentric character; he wants Sophie to pay for the privilege of marrying him, simultaneously giving him immediate monetary relief, even if the law is against him.

--98.228.51.106 (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I neglected to consult the libretto:

BARON: "Als Morgengabe – ganz separatim jedoch – und vor der Mitgift – bin ich verstanden, Herr Notar? – kehrt Schloss und Herrschaft Gaunersdorf an mich zurück! Von Lasten frei und ungemindert an Privilegien, so wie mein Vater selig sie besessen hat."

NOTAR: "Gestatten hochfreiherrliche Gnaden die submisseste Belehrung, dass eine Morgengabe wohl vom Gatten an die Gattin, nicht aber von der Gattin an den Gatten bestellet und stipuliert zu werden, fähig ist."

Maybe the situation can be a bit better explained by adding a parenthesis:

Ochs tells the notary to demand a dower from Sophie's family; to no avail, the notary attempts to explain that such is impossible under the law (Ochs confuses dower and dowry).

I suspect that, like me, many readers might not be familiar with the term dower. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me; I'll make the edit. --98.228.51.106 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Amusing personal anecdote for whoever wants to read it

When I was an impoverished college-student, I had a ticket to see ROSENKAVALIER at the Met, standing-room. Pavarotti played the Italian Singer. During the intermission, I met two tardy opera-goers who had come to hear LuciPav, and when I explained that by missing the first act they had missed him entirely, they gave me their tickets, which were center front-row, first balcony. I tried to explain that the real stars were Kiri Te Kanawa and Kurt Moll, but they were not interested. SingingZombie (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"trouser role" of Octavian

Isn't it significant that Octavian is generally played by female mezzo-soprano? I'm not by any means an opera expert, but a general knowledge article might refer, at least peripherally, to the fact, and, perhaps, to the effort on the part of some male performers to reclaim such parts. If nothing else, it adds depth and connects this opera to others without assuming privileged knowledge.

Manskybook (talk) 08:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've inserted a mention of it. I'm not aware of any men trying to play the part. I know that various Handel roles have gone through a history of being written for castrati, then being sung by women as castrati were no longer available and then being taken up by male falsettists. I'm not aware of roles specifically perceived as trouser parts receiving the same treatment.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Roles - Italian Singer

In original text, the singer is not an 'italian' singer. He sings an aria in italian, but nothing tells us that he's italian. In the original libretto he's just: «Ein sänger» (see the critical edition: Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Sämtliche Werke XXIII. Operdichtungen 1, herausgegeben von Dirk O. Hoffmann und Willi Schuh, Frankfurt am Main, S. Fischer, 1986). 147.162.208.40 (talk) 07:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, but it's not conclusive to my mind (without seeing your reference). If you look at the Wikipedia articles in other languages, they seem to be split between "a singer" and an "Italian singer". The Royal Opera lists the role as "Italian Singer" Der Rosenkavalier Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a libretto (Fürstner, Berlin, 1911) which says "Ein Sänger"; so does the libretto given in the article and the German Wikipedia article. I just went to the trouble of downloading act 1 from IMSLP; it's a Boosey & Hawkes / Fürstner edition (BH19500, no year), which also says "Ein Sänger". 4meter4 says here: "the score specifically calls the role "An Italian Singer"; which score? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'd have to go back to my university's library and dig out the score we used in rehersals to tell you. And of course it's possible my memory is off, given your two above sources. But regaurdless, standard practice in English language programs is to call the role "An Italian Singer". I have a Met program from a few years back that lists the role as such, and a Houston Grand Opera program as well. The San Francisco Opera does as well: http://archive.sfopera.com/reports/rptOpera-id1824.pdf With the Royal Opera also listing the role as such, I'd say that as the English wikipedia we should follow suit with major opera houses in the English speaking world. We can always add a footnote for explanation.4meter4 (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "Italian" is the common designation, it's just that the primary sources say otherwise. Luckily, Wikipedia doesn't care much for those. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, I have Strauss's piano reduction of the score, which I sometimes play with great delight (and sometimes with great angst). In the dramatis personae at the front it's "Singer" ("Ein Sänger"), but at "Di rigori armato" he's identified as "Der Tenor". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Thought: Maybe it's just assumed that the character is Italian, but for the sake of casting, original editions did not specify a precise nationality of the person cast to sing this aria? Just a guess. I'd always assumed this Italian nationality was stated in the original, to go with all the other colorful characters that appear during the scene. I feel sad now if it isn't specified, and that it could also be presumed to be one of her countrymen singing an Italian aria, which feels weird. Obviously the aria has to be in another language than German to stand out as an "aria", but as to who sings it ...? In my mind it has to be an Italian (or non-Germanic) character! Softlavender (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Why did you undo my changes?

There is a consensus in Arabella-page, that the old composer-template should only be used if nothing else is available. Why do you undo my changes?--Meister und Margarita (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As you did not answer although you have been active in the meantime, I will revert your changes after 15 more minutes unless I get an answer here.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Why did you undo my changes?

There is a consensus in Opera-talk-page, that the old composer-template should only be used if nothing else is available. Why do you undo my changes? How long will you need to fix the bottom-composer-template? I AGF and believe you do not want to wait until you got a new majority for the old version. I believe that you are working on baking fresh new templates and I kindly ask you to speed it up. In the meantime I reinstall the info box with the painting. User:Viva-Verdi likes my version with the beautiful painting - see my talk-page - and I want to give him some joy. Regards, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(I recommend you get into the habit of using editors's names instead of a generic "you".) 1) M&M: Your version leaves the article without any navigation box to Strauss' other works. I'm going to revert to a more functional page. 2) There is some expression favouring a horizontal navigation box at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, but no agreed path forward has been formulated; further, there is considerable opposition to placing infoboxes into all opera articles. 3) I'm not working on any templates; if you are, please a) present them at the opera project's talk page and b) wait for consensus before implementing them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional illustrations, yes or no?

Due to the discussion above and elsewhere I have learned a lesson: That it is better to ask in advance and seek consensus. I don't want to be seen as rude or stubborn any longer, so I ask all of you if this article could profit of further illustrations or not. I have two questions:

Ochs. I would like to add the most famous and much adored Ochs auf Lerchenau, Richard Mayr. There are two drawings/paintings of him in Commons: [1] by Josef Engelhart, [2] by Anton Faistauer. From the visual point of view I prefer the Faistauer portrait, but the other one tells us a little more about the malicious character of Ochs. Please state your preferences. Then, where to put it? In the paragraph of Act 2? Somewhere else? In the text, I would like to explain a little more that Strauss for a very long time insisted on naming the opera Ochs auf Lerchenau.

Three creators. Also I would like to include pics of the three creators of Rosenkavalier that later on became the founders of the Salzburg Festival. I would like to include them in the section Premiere. Somehow I managed to get a better layout in the German version of the Salzburg Festival. See here: [3]. Maybe someone could help with the technical aspects. The order of appearance in the Salzburg Festival is Reinhardt - Hofm. - Strauss (because the first Salzburg performances of Jedermann were instigated [and directed] by Reinhardt, using the play of Hofm. (in 1920), while Strauss conducted the first operas at the Salzburg (in 1922)). Here I propose first Hofm (text), then Strauss (music) and at last Reinhardt (direction), in chronological order. Best regards, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ochs: I too think that the Faistauer painting of Richard Mayr is more suitable. It could be placed to the right of act 2. (And that picture of some dwarves in act 3 is not illustrating anything of value; it should be removed.)

Three creators: sigh – as soon as you have achieved the removal of the composer's image from this article, you want it back? I don't think having 3 images side-by-side is practical; I suspect it will not show well on any mobile device, and it will squash the text even on computer screens too much. Having Strauss & Hofmannthal side-by-side and Reinhardt below might work; or Strauss directly under the infobox, Reinhardt in the 1st section, "Premiere", and HvH in the section "Language". But I prefer the image without the signature etc.: File:Max Reinhardt.jpg. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek. Regarding Ochs, I agree. But I want to wait a little more until other voices are heard too. I have never been against showing pics of the composer and/or the librettist (see: Das Labyrinth, the German template Richard Strauss that has a pic - also Opernproduktionen der Salzburger Festspiele in German WP, where I featured all composers that have pics in Commons). I just was opposed to making all operas look alike. Due to lack of illustrations a lot of operas will keep the composer on top anyhow. I will check the technical issues with some one who has a mobile with Internet (I'm old fashioned and do not use such technological progress). Regards, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Mercy. I agree that the Act-3-pic is not as good as we wish it were. But we don't have anything else. At least it shows that there is something happening between these three ladies. I saw the production and liked most of it (of course it was not Jurinac, della Casa, Rothenberger, nor Schwarzkopf, Ludwig and Güden), but it was pretty decent. The pic doesn't tell even 40% of the atmosphere during the performance, but … what shall we do. So I ask for mercy. As soon we have better, it will be dismissed. Regards, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 21:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hogarth's The Countess's Morning Levee photo - consensus achieved

I agree with both User:Softlavender and User:Michael Bednarek that the present image is indeed far better: it is certainly lighter. When clicked upon, it becomes a full size image, just as the previous one did. Seen side-by-side, the difference is obvious. I think that we have consensus here. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hogarth's The Countess's Morning Levee (ca. 1744) was the inspiration for the Marschallin's morning reception. Hogarth's The Countess's Morning Levee (ca. 1744) was the inspiration for the Marschallin's morning reception.

Additions to top/lede

Carlotm made two additions to the top/lede (a photo of Hofmannsthal and a box quote) [4] which I have reverted because in my opinion they greatly crowd the lede and make it very hard to read. The box quote is not relevant to the lede, although it might be relevant to the International Success section, for example. The photo of Hofmannsthal can go lower down in the article; in fact it might be nice to spread the photo of Strauss down lower as well to even out the placement of images. Softlavender (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Softlavender, I am against the use of reversion simply because you have another opinion around content or form of the last revision, and I cannot convince myself that I have to seek the consensus of few people, usually quarreling indefinitely or grouped in a local clique. I ask to be judged on the value of my doing, and, if there is an ounce of value, it should be kept and worked around with successive editorial attempts. Carlotm (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the side-by-side display of two photographs in the lead and the full-width quote box are distracting and do under no circumstances belong there. (I think that even the picture of Strauss may be omitted – there's an article about him.) The quote (who's Edoardo Guglielmi?) adds no substance, it's diarrhoeal verbiage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree on all counts, Michael. Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@Carlotm: Please read WP:BRD. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

von or auf?

In present-day casts, Baron Ochs is given as "auf Lerchenau," as in the table at the end of the article. Fans generally assumed (in the 60s at least) this was some kind of joke by Hofmannsthal.

The beginning of the article refers to "Ochs von Lerchenau."

Do authors have an explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.39.75 (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We have to assume that Thomas May wrote at the SFO in 2007 "von Lerchenau"; someone has to dig through web archives to find out for sure. However, the substance of the claim is probably that one of the titles considered was indeed "Ochs auf Lerchenau". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Citation link updated, wiki article corrected. Thanks for noticing this. Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2018 (UTC)