Talk:Macbeth (Verdi)

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Shakespeare Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from http://www.Operajaponica.org. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material . Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by VRT volunteers, under ticket number 2005110510001389.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia volunteer response team system (VRTS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.

On 19 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Macbeth (opera) to Macbeth (Verdi). The result of the discussion was moved.

Revert

I have reverted to the last but one version which explains about the differences between the Verdi and Shakespeare versions. This had been deleted by someone using an IP number. Kleinzach 12:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Live productions which incorporate Macbeth's 1847 aria into the 1865 ending

I've removed a comment in the article re: the San Francisco Opera's 2007 Macbeth which suggested that the aria was included in the Thomas Hampson performances (which I saw in November '07).

I asked Dr. Kip Cranna, Director of Musical Administration, at the San Francisco Opera about this, and his reply (in part) reads:

Your question was forwarded to me. We did not perform the aria “Mal per me che m’affidai” in our 2007 production of “Macbeth.” There was some discussion about possibly adding it in, which was favored by the conductor Massimo Zanetti, but was opposed by the director David Pountney...

(and he goes on to give reasons.)

Does anyone know of any companies which have done it this way? Dr Cranna did add that the 1994 production with James Morris did incoropate the aria. Viva-Verdi (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banco

Shouldn't his name be listed as "Banco" which the opera uses, rather than "Banquo" as in the play? 207.237.243.185 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think it probably should. Opera Grove has "Banco (Banquo)". I'll leave the link to the character in the play, however. --GuillaumeTell 17:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian libretto accessed from the link at the bottom of the article also has Banco. Now the name has been changed in the roles table, should not every instance of the name Banquo in the synopsis also be replaced with Banco, for consistency?--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free! --GuillaumeTell 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two navboxes with the same content

An editor has just added a second, nearly identical navbox to this article [1]. The only difference between the boxes — besides arguably more accessibility and better design in the upper box — are the two bottom sections in the lower box (theatre names, biographical plays and films) which are marginal trivia with AFAIK nothing to do with this article. Can we please remove the redundant lower box. Thank you. --Klein zach 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. The editor has now also put the double box on Stiffelio, Attila, and Il corsaro. Klein zach 08:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor added the broad scope open navbox in March, I support it and restored it, :Discussion is open, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What broad scope are you referring to? I think you've confused this with another box. --Klein zach 03:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As said above: discussion is open on the project talk. is not specifically Macbeth, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Deryck Cooke quote

[Note: This thread was moved here from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera to keep discussions about the article's content local. --Xover (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)][reply]

On Macbeth there's a {{page needed}} tag on a cite to Deryck Cooke's Vindications: Essays on Romantic Music (1982), specifically the essay "Shakespeare into Music" (1964), supporting the following quote:

Only during the present Verdi craze could his Macbeth be seriously set beside its tremendous original. What can we make of a Macbeth who pursues his fatal vision through a musical desert of the old fustian recitative, or a Lady Macbeth whose prayer to be unsexed is a barn-storming martial cabaletta? In the "Grand scena di sonnambulismo", admittedly, Verdi did so magically stroke the big strumming guitar of his orchestra, and so chasten the vocal pride of Italian bel canto, as to foreshadow his achievements of some forty years later.

If anyone has access to either the original essay or the reprinted version—or, in a pinch, can cite the quote to a different source (someone using the same quote perhaps?)—it would be much appreciated. My field is Shakespeare, so for those opera articles that intersect with Shakespeare I will generally lack both the relevant expertise and access to sources. Any assistance would be very much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very outdated quote ("the present Verdi craze" - Verdi's entire canon is now much more highly valued and frequently performed than it was during the supposed "craze" of 1964) and is an old-fashioned snooty view of "primitive" Italian opera, typical of British Wagnerians such as Cooke at that time. It doesn't belong in the article at all imo and I am removing it.Smeat75 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smeat75: Since this is specifically about the content of the article, which belongs on the article's talk page, I'm going to go ahead and copy this thread there for discussion just after I save this here. But everyone interested should, of course, feel free to comment there (the more the better!).

Regarding the specific edit, I disagree that it should be removed (per WP:PRESERVE, if nothing else). What the critical opinion was at the time, or among a certain subset of critics, is importance historical context about its reception. We have entire articles dedicated to that (e.g. Critical approaches to Hamlet). If you feel the quote as currently used isn't sufficiently contextualized, the correct fix is to rewrite it. For example by adding the context you just did in your comment here: the opinion Cook expresses reflects a trend of snobbery among a certain group of critics, at a certain time, and the modern view is completely different. As a general rule, we shouldn't hide such things but document, contextualize, and explain them. --Xover (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth (opera) → Macbeth (Verdi) – Dab from other operas with same name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. asilvering (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not needed as the others are very little performed compared to Verdi's. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 22:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Compare Lohengrin (opera) where this was tried and rejected in 2019. The dab doesn't mean's it's the only opera of the name, just the primary topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was aware of Lohengrin (opera), but not that it was previously RM-ed. I would have supported that RM too if I had seen it, but the case for partial disambiguation there is stronger because there there is one other topic with a 82:1 pageview ratio and here there are two other operas named Macbeth with articles, plus two other entries on the disambiguation page and the pageview ratio is only 27:1 compared to the other two combined.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines#Operas: disambiguation is poorly written, giving no guidance as to which opera is "subsequent", and cites an example that hasn't followed its own rules since 2015, so I question the degree to which it still reflects consensus of the broader community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hundreds of articles link here, including the redirect Macbeth (Verdi). I don't see anybody not finding it, and the two other pieces can be handled by a hatnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZE and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Far more readers searching for the famous opera Macbeth will know it's an opera than will know in advance that it's by Verdi. Since it's also a clear primary topic among operas titled Macbeth, the majority of readers are best served by the current title with a hatnote pointing to the less-sought operas for the minority. Station1 (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. Macbeth (opera) is indeed incomplete disambiguation and should redirect to the Macbeth (disambiguation)#Operas dab page in the same manner that Macbeth (film) redirects to the Macbeth (disambiguation)#Film dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Incomplete disambiguation, even if it is the best-known opera by that name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Relevant guideline:
Usually, a qualified title that is still ambiguous has no primary topic, and therefore should redirect to the disambiguation page (or to a section of it). ...
In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. As with any other term with a primary topic, it should either be the title of the article for that topic or redirect to it. See List of partially disambiguated article titles.
— Wikipedia:Disambiguation § Incomplete disambiguation
It is also worth having a read through Wikipedia:Partially disambiguated page names. Graham (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Originally I was going to oppose because I felt that this was an acceptable PDAB per WikiNav. But then I did the pageviews of all the articles under Macbeth (disambiguation)#Operas, and Macbeth (opera) is essentially tied with Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk (opera). Now I'm unsure if the Shostakovich opera actually is referred to as "Macbeth", but if it is then this requested move is valid. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not referred to as Macbeth. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The proposed title is equally concise, and disambiguation by composer name is very conventional and works better in this case than "opera". There are multiple other operas by the same name that are discussed on Wikipedia, and pageview ratio here is not exceptionally high. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.