Talk:The Pirates of Penzance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Original comments
FYI, Gilbert and Sullivan themselves referred to their works as "comic operas" or "operas," never as "operettas." I have therefore restored that phrase. Marc Shepherd 04:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
For a change, that plot summary is original, though I had to look up the song names. :) Thus, no attribution appears. -- April
[edit] Popeye theme
I removed the following because I can't see a resemblance. Let's see a citation, please before putting it back.
-
- The chorus for Oh! better far to live and die begins "For I am a Pirate King (hoorah for the Pirate King)", which was adapted some decades later as the start of the "Popeye" cartoon theme song.
-- Derek Ross | Talk 05:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
And I put it back with a little explanation as to specifics. I don't recall now which author put me on to that fact, but it is true if you bother actually listening to it. Wahkeenah 05:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, so it's different by two notes. Try this on your piano:
- For I am a Pirate King
- G-sharp A B B B A G-sharp E
- Hoorah for the Pirate King
- B C-sharp A C-sharp E C-sharp B
- I'm Popeye the sailor man
- G-sharp B B B A G-sharp B
- I'm Popeye the sailor man
- B C-sharp A C-sharp E C-sharp B
Well, the words for Pirate King are actually
- For I am a Pirate King,
- He is! Hoorah for the Pirate King
so you're missing another two notes from Pirate King but it's not just a question of the pitch. The rhythmic structure is quite different. As far as I remember without benefit of sheet music it's
- Pirate King
- (2) 2, 1 3, 1 1 1 1, 4
- (2) 1 1, 1 1 1 1, 3 1, 4
- Popeye
- 2 1 1, 1 3, 1 3
- 2 1 1, 1 3, 1 3
The (2)s at the beginning of the Pirate King lines stand for the rest at the beginning of each line. But be that as it may, they are pretty different whether you listen to them or just sing them. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- Next thing you'll be telling me that "My Sweet Lord" is not at all like "He's So Fine". Wahkeenah 16:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
- And that "Polovtsian Dances" is totally unrelated to "Kismet", <grin>. I agree with you about "My Sweet Lord" being like "He's So Fine". -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
When I hear "My Sweet Lord", I keep expecting a girl-chorus background to interpose "Doo-lang, doo-lang" after each line. The similarity of these bits of G&S vs. Popeye do not necessarily jump out at you, the way "Come, friends, who plough the sea" is very obviously the inspiration for "Hail, hail, the gang's all here". But when I read (I forget where) a comment some years ago that compared the two, it became apparent that there was some connection. Maybe there could be something on the Plagiarism page about intentional or unintentional ripoffs of classics. One good example is the triad performed repetitively in the middle of Liszt's "Hungarian Rhapsody" (1851), which is identical to the "Fi-ga-ro" triad performed repetitively in the middle of Rossini's "Largo al Factotum" (1816), a fact which was verbally acknowledged by Bugs Bunny in Rhapsody Rabbit. Then there is the similarity between the beginning of Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" and the beginning of Cole Porter's "Night and Day", a fact acknowledged by Victor Borge when he would start playing the one and segue seamlessly into the other one. Wahkeenah 23:06, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I see the that the Popeye theme and Oh! better far to live and die differ by only 2 notes (out of 7), but the timing is significantly different. And more important, I can find no evidence for the assertion that Sammy Lerner adapted the Sullivan tune when he wrote the Popeye theme. –Shoaler (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sullivan himself was once accused of similar borrowing, I believe from Mozart, and he supposedly replied, "Well, we both had only the same seven notes to choose from." Although I don't care passionately either way, I lean toward the view that the Pirate King–Popeye connection is rather tenuous. Marc Shepherd
-
- What if we say something like, "some people speculate that...."? Personally, I think the connection is pretty obvious. Ssilvers 19:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- When it is so speculative, it's hard to justify its inclusion. Original research, anyone ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- In addition, there's a Wikipedia style guideline that strongly urges against the vague attribution in phrases like "some people speculate that...." Whose speculation was it? Marc Shepherd 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Editors have disputed whether the "Popeye" theme was inspired by "I am the pirate king." Everyone agrees that it is not the identical tune. The question is whether it is so close that the similarity had to be intentional; on this there is no agreement. However, Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. If there is not a citable source, I suggest that the comment be removed from the article. Marc Shepherd 16:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Where Does The Story Take Place
Act I takes place in a small bay on the sea coast in Cornwall, presumably close to Penzance. Act II takes place at the graveyard of a ruined chapel in the grounds of MG Stanley's home, which must also be fairly close to Penzance. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Papp's Pirates and NPOV
A recent editor wrote (his contributions underlined):
- Compared to traditional productions of the opera, Papp's Pirates featured a more swashbuckling Pirate King and Frederic, and a broader, more musical comedy style of humor, emphasizing the antics of the performers over the intrinsic humor of the libretto.
Though perhaps arguably true in one observer's opinion, this comment does not present a neutral point of view and is not verifiable. If you wish to re-introduce the comment, please do so in a manner that preserves NPOV and verifiability. Marc Shepherd 16:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, different productions vary, depending on the director and other factors. A director of a "traditional" style Pirates production might permit lots of "antics" and liberties by the actors, while a director of a Papp-style production might have a more restrictive idea of the relationship between the book and the actors' liberties. Ssilvers 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Amateur productions
An explanation for the editor who insert info on a particular production. Pirates has been produced thousands and thousands of times around the world. Other than the Papp production, it would be hard to imagine that any one production would be notable enough to add to this article. One would have to create an adaptation that caught on for a very significant number of new productions, or that was shown on Broadway or the West End, or made into a major film, to really warrant a description here. Hope this helps. Ssilvers 05:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. A production needs to be notable (in the Wikipedia sense of the word) before being described in this article. Probably the only amateur production worth mentioning would be the first one ever staged, if that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ditto; agree. Marc Shepherd 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 23a
Can someone who knows the terminology better fix up my footnote on the policeman's chant? Adam Cuerden 12:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes in list of musical numbers
I have removed all footnotes from the list of musical numbers. To take them one by one:
- "Climbing over rocky mountain" – the fact that this song originated in Thespis is already stated elsewhere in the article.
- "Pray observe the magnanimity" – there are lots of reprises in G&S. This is a list of musical numbers, not a discussion of musical structure.
- "Sergeant, approach!" – Again, this is a list of musical numbers, not a discussion of musical structure.
- "Act II finale" – Much of this was incorrect. The original ending was "At length we are provided with unusual felicity," not ability. This was sung by Ruth, not the Girls. (The verse was divided up, with Ruth, King, Mabel, and Sergeant each getting two lines.) It did not lead into "Poor wand'ring ones," although that's what Papp did. As G&S wrote it, this section ended the opera.
- "You/We triumph now" – easily accommodated in the main list; no footnote needed.
The page WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Opera articles gives our proposed structure for the opera articles. A discussion of the musical structure should reside in a section called "Musical elements."
A discussion of alternative/deleted versions should reside in a section called "Versions." The Pirates article already has such a section, although it is incomplete. I would suggest we revise it, rather than continuing to complicate the list of musical numbers. Marc Shepherd 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: Some of the information in the footnotes was useful, and should be added elsewhere in the article. For instance, I didn't realize that "Sergeant, approach" is a reference to the canticle and response from the Anglican church service. (I am not an Anglican, and wouldn't know.) But the G&S works abound in such references. I believe Mabel's cadenza on "Yes, 'tis Mabel" is a direct quote from the Kreutzer sonata of Beethoven. Once you start using the List of Musical Numbers to footnote cultural references, where does it stop? Marc Shepherd 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you restore the notable material that you cut under appropriate headings so that we can edit it? --Ssilvers 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't see anything worth restoring. Anyone else, feel free to give it a shot. I myself will expand the Versions section when I get a chance (if no one else gets to it first), but what was stated in the footnote—besides being misplaced–was incorrect. Had it been accurate, I would have moved it rather than deleting it. Marc Shepherd 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why don't you restore the notable material that you cut under appropriate headings so that we can edit it? --Ssilvers 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. It sounds like the "sergeant approach" info needs to go into some kind of "Analysis" section rather than a version section? --Ssilvers 17:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- It definitely doesn't go in "Versions," as it's not anything that changed from one version to another.
- Some of the G&S opera articles make comments on cultural references in the Background sections, without breaking it into a separate "Analysis" section. I think that's okay. At some point, when there's enough of it, a separate section becomes appropriate.
- But Pirates happens to have quite a bit of quoting and paying homage to other pieces of music. I think that if we mention one example in isolation, it takes on the feel of a "factoid." The work Sam did on Arthur Sullivan#Musical Quotations is a great example. It reads in an encyclopedic fashion, rather than just being a random collection of facts. Marc Shepherd 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that the "Sergeant, approach" number is a little more awkward than most: It's not in the vocal score, but is a partially chanted dialogue with minor orchestral accompaniment. It's not a simple "musical number". The rest... point taken. Adam Cuerden 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Have added a (currently hidden) footnote to that effect. Fix it up and make it visible if you like it. Adam Cuerden 23:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have moved the relevant information into the main text and added some context. I would suggest that this is the way such information should be handled in the future, not as footnotes embedded in the list of roles or the list of musical numbers. (A separate section on musical elements would also be appropriate if there is more to say, but as it's just one paragraph, I embedded it in the Background section.) Furthermore, the statement (in the original footnote) that the E naturals are played in the orchestra was incorrect. This passage is unaccompanied. Marc Shepherd 15:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Odd. Could have sworn the score had a piano part. Adam Cuerden 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Marc means -- in the P/V score the E's are certainly played. But the note reads nicely now, so who cares. --Ssilvers 17:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you listen to a recording, you'll find that the orchestra isn't playing. I suspect it's in the P/V as a rehearsal aid. Marc Shepherd 18:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Marc means -- in the P/V score the E's are certainly played. But the note reads nicely now, so who cares. --Ssilvers 17:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Or just a traditional cut-of-accompaniment. I mean, having the orchestra play under the chanting is a rather awkward idea if you can find some other way to keep the police in tune. Adam Cuerden 20:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've just checked. The orchestration has no accompaniment. The Chappell vocal score cues the first E-natural in the piano, which I'm sure was put there only for rehearsal purposes. It could also be useful in a production with weak singers, but that's not how Sullivan intended it to be heard. Marc Shepherd 01:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Why does this article make absolutely no mention of the work "Queen Victoria March," also known as "To Queen Victoria's Name We Bow" being included in the original work?
See here and scroll down, or even listen to it: http://oldsoaks.mugss.org/shows/2002/index.htm
- It is not include in the "original" work, although it was included in the single (on book) copyright performance in Paignton. There is a lot in the Paignton draft that is not included in the others and was never performed again. -- Ssilvers 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Important Omission
- I seriously considered this. I didn't include Wachs's research for the same reason I didn't include my own. Although both are available on websites, both fall into the category of "new research" that doesn't yet have broad acceptance in the G&S community. To present Wachs's view, my view, and the Tillet/Spencer view would take the article far afield from its core subject matter. There is one paragraph addressing all of this (the 3rd paragraph under "background." This, I think, is about as far as the article should go. Marc Shepherd 14:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. There is nothing wrong with adding the "External link" to each article, however, for anyone who wishes to do further reading. Instead of saying "Kevin Wachs article", however, perhaps it should say "2005 article from GASBAG entitled ...."? -- Ssilvers 18:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Origin of the phrase "copyright piracy"
The article now states: "American companies quickly mounted unauthorized "pirated" productions..." as if the word piracy was already in use for copyright infringement and in 1880.
- When did the word gain this secondary meaning?
- Did The Pirates of Penzance have any effect in the adoption of this meaning?
-- Petri Krohn 18:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, references to the "pirating" of stage works was already in use. -- Ssilvers 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Frederic's age when he reaches his 21st birthday
The play is set in Queen Victoria's time, so if Frederic lives to his eighties, his lifespan will include 1900 which was not a leap year, so he won't have a birthday for the eight years between 1896 and 1904. Therefore he won't have his 21st birthday until he is 88 years old. Jess Cully 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe so, although it is not clear whether Gilbert forgot that, and it is likewise not clear in precisely what year the action of the show is meant to be set. In any case, it is a very technical point and detracts from a first-time reader's understanding of the plot, so I fudged the issue by writing "in his eighties". Let a reader understand the plot before becoming embroiled in the controversy over exactly when Fredric was born and whether Gilbert meant for him to be 84 or 88 on his 21st birthday. In fact, the important issue for the plot summary is that he is not yet 21 and must rejoin the pirates. The fact that the year when he will turn 21 is named was just to get a laugh. -- Ssilvers 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Errors in the Script"
An anonymous editor added a section called "Errors in the script". I have modified it somewhat to take out some inaccuracies and called it "Anomalies" in the script. Is it worth keeping? I am not sure that it adds to the reader's understanding of the opera. -- Ssilvers 05:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I've moved it here: It could be good eventually, but it needs a more substantial depth of coverage (e.g. "Swollen by the summer rain" as an unrewritten Thespis line) before it's quite ready. Let's fix it up here, then move it back. Adam Cuerden talk 06:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- The section is silly. We could add a similar section to The Mikado explaining that in fact there was no Chancellor of the Exchequer in 19th-century Japan; or one to H.M.S. Pinafore explaining that Ralph Rackstraw is clearly old enough to be Josephine's father; none of this would be adding value to the encyclopedia. --Quuxplusone 04:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Let's leave it out. -- Ssilvers 05:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good points. I do think we could do a bit more with textual analysis of the operas, but this isn't how. Adam Cuerden talk 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Anomalies in the script
Two anomalies arguably are found in the play's script. First, while Frederic's birthday, February 29th, is being celebrated in the opening scene (presumably it is March 1, since Frederic is 21, so it must not be a leap year). In the next scene, however, Major-General Stanley's daughters sing of the "summer rain" (a line carried over from Thespis, for which the song "Climbing over Rocky Mountain" was originally written) and wish to dip their feet in the water at the Cornish seaside, jumping to descriptions and activities from a different season. They alsomention that they are waiting for their papa and the servants to arrive with the luncheon. However, their father, according to the stage directions, arrives alone.
[edit] Fulfill
For the G&S articles, we use UK spellings. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, however, Fulfil and Fulfill are both correct in the UK. In the US, only Fulfill is correct. In such situations, WP guidelines suggest that it is better to choose a spelling that is correct in both countries. I made the opposite argument in the musical theatre article, which uses US spellings, saying that we should use the spelling "theatre" instead of "theater", since the former spelling is acceptable in both countries. -- Ssilvers 04:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Very sensible! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Gracious me! The spelling with three ls is new to me but I must concur. (As with the ubiquitous -ize endings) Tim riley 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about any "-ize's": "-ise" is correct for British subject articles. :-) Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)