Talk:Les pêcheurs de perles

"Au fond du temple saint"

Since it is such a standard, is it worthwhile having a table of notable recordings of it alone? Varlaam (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

I have begun an expansion of the article, in the hopes of bringing it to FA standard in due course. It will therefore have a somewht unbalanced look for a while, but the "Under construction" banner shouls alert readers to what's going on. As a first step I have posted an extended Performance history section. If anyone feels that there are historically important performances which I have failed to mention, can you please suggest them here, rather than just adding them to the article? Otherwise the section may grow and grow. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Loewenburg Annals of opera, Milan, Aix-les-Bains, Coburg, Lisbon saw productions in 1886, followed by Geneva, London (Covent Garden?), Barcelona, Brussels and Mexico in 1887. These were presumably prompted by the publication of the second (corrupt) vocal score in 1885 with Godard's trio (Dean comments on the score in Appendix F of his study).

Also I think it would be nice to mention the rather distinguished cast for the first Paris revival at the Théâtre de la Gaîté: Emma Calvé, (the first Hoffmann) Talazac, and (the first Don José, now a baritone), Lhérie; Calvé also appeared at the creation at the OC in 1893 (this is all from Wolff S. Un demi-siècle d'Opéra-Comique. André Bonne, Paris, 1953.).

I wonder if it has ever been performed in Ceylon/Sri Lanka?. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It was probably the increasing popularity of Carmen, as well as the Choudens publication, that caused the post-1886 flurry of interest in Les Pecheurs. I have incorporated more material, and have dug out a few details of the first (and as far as I know, only) performance in Sri Lanka. Brianboulton (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pearl-Fishers-Paris-1863.jpg

This article identifies this image as an illustration of the 1863 production at the Théâtre Lyrique, but the caption is in Italian, and the illustrator is Antonio Bonamore (1845–1907). It seems more likely it was for a late 19th century production in Italy (possibly Milan, since Bonamore is known to have worked there). See File:Final scene of Act1 of 'The Pearl Fishers' by Bizet - Gallica.jpg for a higher resolution version. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I do not know about the background of the image, but Gallica itself states it as published in 1863. That said, I am more interested in how you obtained a 3,533 × 4,250 pixels image from Gallica; I fail to see any links there that allow one to do so. Revealing your method would help to obtain some better images from Gallica. Jappalang (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In these gallery collections the information given in the Gallica annotation does not always seem to apply to every item. A date of 1863 seems very improbable in the case of this stage illustration by Bonamore. He was only 17 or 18 at the time. All the other examples of his work that we have are later, and 1886 would fall in that period of activity. It also seems improbable that this opera would have received any attention in Italy before Carmen became well known. And if Bonamore had actually been in Paris in 1863, it would more likely have been published in French. It might be better to use a non-committal caption like "Final scene of act 1, illustration by Antonio Bonamore (1845–1907)". If you follow the source link for the high res version, you will see a zoom option. Overlapping, fully zoomed images can be reassembled in a photo editor. (A large browser window reduces the number of steps.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 12:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I saw that zoom feature, but it was pretty useless for the page I was looking at that time (no zoom in detail). I thought the zoom was a red herring, so it seems my first experience was just bad luck. Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think Gallica is in error. The illustration also appears in Teatro La Fenice's programma di sala (programme book) for their 2004 production of the opera (See [1], p. 253) with a caption stating that Bonamore's engraving was published in Teatro Illustrato April 1886, on the occasion of the Italian premiere at La Scala (20 March 1886) and was based on Giovanni Zuccarelli's (1846-1897) orignal set design for the La Scala production. Voceditenore (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I find myself agreeing with both of you. It is not unknown for such databases to make errors. In fairness, Gallica did not say this image was published by Théâtre Lyrique (nor did it give details on what name it was published under), but stated it as related to the opera performed at the theatre. I think we can use the programme provided by Voceditenore as the reliable source on the image's origin (at the La Scala on 20 March 1886). Jappalang (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
    • If I'm reading the Italian correctly, the caption in the programme book states that it depicts the Leïla-Zurga duet in Act 3, rather than the final scene of Act 1 as indicated in the Gallica image. I think the programme book may be wrong about that. To me it looks a lot more like the duet between Leïla and Nadir that ends act 1. --Robert.Allen (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I'd go with caption actually on the engraving. Voceditenore (talk) 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Modern productions

Editors are politely requested not to add to this section details of performances that are of only marginal significance. There are many such productions of this opera, and they can't all be mentioned, otherwise the article will degenerate into a disorganised hotchpotch list of random performances. Please note that this is a featured article, and should be maintained as an example of Wikipedia's best work. Thank you, Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely concur with this. Voceditenore (talk) 05:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added to External links a link to the Operabase page which lists recent and forthcoming productions. This should be helpful to the casual reader. Brianboulton (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Caps

French capitalisation would call for Les Pêcheurs de perles, English Les Pêcheurs de Perles. What's with the no-caps-at-all version? Awien (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2013 (UTC) (Adds) Otherwise, congratulations on virtually impeccable French. Whenever I can, I check out any French-themed articles that are going to appear on the main page because they are all too frequently riddled with mistakes, whereas in this article (other than the caps) all that needed to be fixed was one hyphen and one question mark). Bravo! Awien (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The article follows the capitalisation conventions in the WikiProject Opera Guide, which are those used in the most recent editions of New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Oxford Dictionary of Opera and The Viking Opera Guide. Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

David Gilmour DVD

I see some editors claiming (elsewhere) that the existence of this aria on a pop DVD is a "trivial" piece of information. In my view, it is additional evidence of the degree to which Bizet's music has crossed over into popular culture and one of the more interesting facts to be added to this article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 06:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether this information should remain in the article is properly a matter for discussion, and I am glad that you have brought it here. A contrary view to yours is that a performance of a pop version of this aria in a concert 12 years ago is by no means notable, and hardly indicative of Bizet's music having "crossed over into popular culture". To call this "one of the more interesting facts" in the article shows a pretty blank mind as far as the opera is concerned. Versions of operatic arias have been frequently performed outside the context of the original work – in pop versions, parodies (N.B. Anna Russell) and TV adverts; should all these be listed in opera articles as contributions to popular culture? Creating an "other recordings" section looks an open invitation to this, with potentially adverse consequences for this and other opera articles. Rather than eliminate the information before discussion, I have tidied it and moved it to the text part of the main "Recordings" section. This may or may not be considered a reasonable compromise. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Brian on this. This one instance of one rock singer covering one aria in one concert tour hardly qualifies as evidence of the impact of this opera on popular culture—quite unlike Rossini's William Tell and Barber of Seville or Mascagni's Cavalleria rusticana whose impact on popular culture has been written about extensively in scholarly sources. If it has to be in here, a brief mention in the prose introduction to the recording section is all that it merits, certainly not a separate section, which not only gives this piece of trivia undue weight, but as Brian says opens up a cruft magnet. Interestingly, and as per usual with these items, the fact that he sang this particular aria in his concerts in 2001/2002 is given zero importance and discussion in the two articles that are actually about the David Gilmour in Concert DVD and David Gilmour. Voceditenore (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As I said earlier (elsewhere), I wouldn't have blinked if the Gilmour recording had been removed because of its trivial or non-notable character. However, removing it because of lacking sources seemed utterly bureaucratic and bizarre to me. I should have accepted the removal, despite its unfounded reasoning. I apologise for the ensuing kerfuffle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that ensuring our very best articles have adequate sources can be classified as "bureaucratic and bizarre". I could have added a {{cn}} tag, but that doesn't seem terribly appropriate for the TFA either. As I said in the other thread on this, and others have also said above, the material is trivial in itself: one repetition a popular crossover does not make. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)