![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I actually got hold of some recording of 20th century "ballad operas" to confirm this, but the term as applied to these works either has nothing whatever to do with the 18th century genre - or is based on a misapprehension. (Mind you this has nothing to do with how "good" they are - in fact they are definitely at least "interesting").
Perhaps we need another article to cover 20th century "ballad operas"??? --( Soundofmusicals 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
I appreciate the intentions of bringing out the racy origins of ballad opera, but unfortunately the predominance of this tone in this article makes it difficult to give a balanced treatment of the long development of English light opera, not all of which was as bitingly satirical as the examples you have given. Does the format of spoken dialogue and sung ballad in 18th century stage drama belong under this name, or is that simply something else which is not to be classed as 'ballad opera'? Dr Steven Plunkett 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've had a look at the article itself, just to make the distinction a little clearer. Among other things, I've cut the reference to Dibdin, Arne etc. - as I can find no reference to any specific ballad opera any of these gentlemen wrote (this bit was not a contribution of mine). -- Soundofmusicals 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Your reworking of this article, in the opinion of this old pedant (whose first degree, incidentally, was in musical history) widens the definition of "Ballad Opera" to near meaninglessness, and throws out a fair bit of baby with the bathwater. Still, this wide and highly vague definition of a very specific genre does exist in otherwise generally accurate and very highly reputable references, and is far from being just your creation, so I suppose we might as well live with it.
Might I humbly suggest, on the other hand, that you might like to perform yet another drastic rewrite, distinguishing a little more clearly between the original genre (as in the article as I originally left it - and its much more gentle contemporary, with (mostly) specially composed music, non-satiric themes, and pastoral rather than criminal characters. (I.E. different in practically every respect except chronology!!).
Perhaps even a opening line something like "the term Ballad Opera is used to refer to a form of highly satirical 18th century stage presentation, and also to a form of eighteenth and nineteenth century light opera with music, often also called a "pastoral". Come to think of it - the Beggar's opera was at one stage described an a "Newgate Pastoral" by its author!!
have fun. -- Soundofmusicals 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Soundofmusicals,
In my rewrite I have sought to maintain WP standards. I have removed opinions, which however strongly you may hold them controvert Wikipedia:Original research. I know how difficult it is to deny oneself - believe me I often do so in my contributions - but there is a difference between a scholarly essay and a WP article, which should be designed to be read by laypeople, not experts. You (and for that matter I) may not agree with Grove and the standard reference books, but however many musical history degrees we can muster between us, they can muster more.
So we should try to avoid the punditry and rhetoric of phrases like 'In retrospect we may wonder...', disquisitions on Handel's financial crises, overstated attack of (or defence from) standard authorities (or Wikipedians) with whom we may personally disagree, reconstructions of what we think audiences may have thought, non- neutral points of view, and so on. I hope you may agree that I have retained all the elements relating to ballad opera itself that you have contributed, which are relevant from a WP point of view. If you want to make a detailed case against the conventional categorisation of ballad opera, there are numerous musical history magazines which would be more appropriate homes for your analysis, where I for one would be most interested to read them.
with best regards -- Smerus 19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a reference out there that supports your position (or at least some of your assertions). There's nothing wrong with choosing to cite sources that you really think are the most accurate ones. Usually there is *something* in the library to support positions that good musicians and drama students would necessarily support.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here's Thomas Bauman writing in the Oxford Illustrated History of Opera: "A flood of imitations and successors followed close on the heels of Gay's opera. The elememts of satire and burlesque remained strong in many of these works, for example several by Henry Fielding, but serious, naive, historical, rustic and patriotic themes also found in the ballad opera a congenial format...After mid-century the English ballad opera began to yield to comic operas with more and more of their music by a single composer. The transition received decisive impetus when John Beard took over Covent Garden in 1760 and began at once to set opera before spoken plays in his repertoire..." Bauman recommends Roger Fiske's English Theatre Music in the Eighteenth Century as the most comprehensive work on this period.
A couple of queries: Thomas D'Urfey couldn't have cashed in on the craze for The Beggar's Opera (1728) since he had died in 1723; and Thomas Dibdin should probably be Charles Dibdin his father? -- Folantin 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Rinaldo did not have "racy English dialogue", did not use pre-existent folk ballad tunes, was not a "satirical" story with "lower class, often criminal, characters". It did not represent "eighteenth-century protest against the Italian conquest of the London operatic scene", it represented part of that conquest, as it was "the first Italian opera composed specifically for the London stage". It may well be the source cited does say it was the first ballad opera; but then obviously the author of that source has his own definition of a ballad opera, and it is very different from the one used in this article. If so, that should have been specified, because otherwise the paragraph doesn't make sense. -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I cant get hold of the source, but it does seem an odd claim. I have amended it for the time being and provided a source for more common views.-- Sabrebd ( talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I actually got hold of some recording of 20th century "ballad operas" to confirm this, but the term as applied to these works either has nothing whatever to do with the 18th century genre - or is based on a misapprehension. (Mind you this has nothing to do with how "good" they are - in fact they are definitely at least "interesting").
Perhaps we need another article to cover 20th century "ballad operas"??? --( Soundofmusicals 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC))
I appreciate the intentions of bringing out the racy origins of ballad opera, but unfortunately the predominance of this tone in this article makes it difficult to give a balanced treatment of the long development of English light opera, not all of which was as bitingly satirical as the examples you have given. Does the format of spoken dialogue and sung ballad in 18th century stage drama belong under this name, or is that simply something else which is not to be classed as 'ballad opera'? Dr Steven Plunkett 13:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I've had a look at the article itself, just to make the distinction a little clearer. Among other things, I've cut the reference to Dibdin, Arne etc. - as I can find no reference to any specific ballad opera any of these gentlemen wrote (this bit was not a contribution of mine). -- Soundofmusicals 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Your reworking of this article, in the opinion of this old pedant (whose first degree, incidentally, was in musical history) widens the definition of "Ballad Opera" to near meaninglessness, and throws out a fair bit of baby with the bathwater. Still, this wide and highly vague definition of a very specific genre does exist in otherwise generally accurate and very highly reputable references, and is far from being just your creation, so I suppose we might as well live with it.
Might I humbly suggest, on the other hand, that you might like to perform yet another drastic rewrite, distinguishing a little more clearly between the original genre (as in the article as I originally left it - and its much more gentle contemporary, with (mostly) specially composed music, non-satiric themes, and pastoral rather than criminal characters. (I.E. different in practically every respect except chronology!!).
Perhaps even a opening line something like "the term Ballad Opera is used to refer to a form of highly satirical 18th century stage presentation, and also to a form of eighteenth and nineteenth century light opera with music, often also called a "pastoral". Come to think of it - the Beggar's opera was at one stage described an a "Newgate Pastoral" by its author!!
have fun. -- Soundofmusicals 02:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Dear Soundofmusicals,
In my rewrite I have sought to maintain WP standards. I have removed opinions, which however strongly you may hold them controvert Wikipedia:Original research. I know how difficult it is to deny oneself - believe me I often do so in my contributions - but there is a difference between a scholarly essay and a WP article, which should be designed to be read by laypeople, not experts. You (and for that matter I) may not agree with Grove and the standard reference books, but however many musical history degrees we can muster between us, they can muster more.
So we should try to avoid the punditry and rhetoric of phrases like 'In retrospect we may wonder...', disquisitions on Handel's financial crises, overstated attack of (or defence from) standard authorities (or Wikipedians) with whom we may personally disagree, reconstructions of what we think audiences may have thought, non- neutral points of view, and so on. I hope you may agree that I have retained all the elements relating to ballad opera itself that you have contributed, which are relevant from a WP point of view. If you want to make a detailed case against the conventional categorisation of ballad opera, there are numerous musical history magazines which would be more appropriate homes for your analysis, where I for one would be most interested to read them.
with best regards -- Smerus 19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a reference out there that supports your position (or at least some of your assertions). There's nothing wrong with choosing to cite sources that you really think are the most accurate ones. Usually there is *something* in the library to support positions that good musicians and drama students would necessarily support.... Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here's Thomas Bauman writing in the Oxford Illustrated History of Opera: "A flood of imitations and successors followed close on the heels of Gay's opera. The elememts of satire and burlesque remained strong in many of these works, for example several by Henry Fielding, but serious, naive, historical, rustic and patriotic themes also found in the ballad opera a congenial format...After mid-century the English ballad opera began to yield to comic operas with more and more of their music by a single composer. The transition received decisive impetus when John Beard took over Covent Garden in 1760 and began at once to set opera before spoken plays in his repertoire..." Bauman recommends Roger Fiske's English Theatre Music in the Eighteenth Century as the most comprehensive work on this period.
A couple of queries: Thomas D'Urfey couldn't have cashed in on the craze for The Beggar's Opera (1728) since he had died in 1723; and Thomas Dibdin should probably be Charles Dibdin his father? -- Folantin 08:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Rinaldo did not have "racy English dialogue", did not use pre-existent folk ballad tunes, was not a "satirical" story with "lower class, often criminal, characters". It did not represent "eighteenth-century protest against the Italian conquest of the London operatic scene", it represented part of that conquest, as it was "the first Italian opera composed specifically for the London stage". It may well be the source cited does say it was the first ballad opera; but then obviously the author of that source has his own definition of a ballad opera, and it is very different from the one used in this article. If so, that should have been specified, because otherwise the paragraph doesn't make sense. -- 91.148.159.4 ( talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I cant get hold of the source, but it does seem an odd claim. I have amended it for the time being and provided a source for more common views.-- Sabrebd ( talk) 16:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)