Talk:The Threepenny Opera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misrepresented source and miscategorisation[edit]

I am recording this on the talk page, which is a more appropriate location for the explanation. The article is, and has been for a long time, miscategorised as an "opera". This is a misrepresentation of the source. Grove does not say that it's an opera. On the contrary, in the list of "Operas, Operettas, Musicals and Ballets", it is described as "play with music". (Grove 1980 v.20, 309). The arguments against calling it an opera are that, as the image in the article states unambiguously, as does the lede, that it is a "play with music", or a musical. The categorisation in place is OR. A search on Youtube for recordings offers a common-sense based definition as well. No one who has actually experienced the work imagines it's an opera. Our article ought not to mislead its readers with a false categorisation, regardless of a Wikiproject's (false) sense of ownership.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's a musical or an opera, and I've seen it twice; its genre is hard to pin down. Usually it is produced by "light opera" companies, and lots of sources call it an opera (including Grove). Others call it a musical. Others say it is neither. But, DP, you have been waging this war for 7 years (see opera discussion above). What harm does it do to include the opera categories as well as the musicals categories? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is most usually produced by theatre companies. It isn't true to say that "lots" of sources call it an opera. An isolated few follow Stephen Hinton's idiosyncratic designation. The overwhelming majority do not call it an opera (including Grove). That is the standard scholarly consensus. Insisting that a Wikipedia article follows that is misconstrued as a "war". As indicated and following the appropriate Wikipedia policies, I went and checked the sources for myself. And I found that Grove doesn't list it as an opera, as was claimed by the Wikiproject Opera's ownership advocates. Here is the evidence, the first a source that devotes an entire section to precisely the question "Is it an opera or a musical", and then more than forty sources all of whom describe it as a musical. That is, needless to say, excluding all of those sources that describe it as a "play".

Opera or Musical?: It concludes: "The Threepenny Opera is an opera in name only; its form of spoken and sung vocal parts defines it as a musical not a traditional opera." - A Study Guide to The Threepenny Opera section "Opera or Musical?"

 • DP •  {huh?} 22:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing new in the dilemma of categorising this work. For years, this Wikipedia article categorised it as play, music, opera. There are arguments for each of those. Until we create Category:Stücke mit Musik and discuss its parents, why exclude one here? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a dilemma, there is only an error that requires correction. We have a duty to not mislead. I didn't have access to Grove and other works, upon which the objections given above were founded, to check whether or not they supported the claims made above. With the exception of a very small mention in passing (with no commentary or elucidation), the claims were unsupported. The arguments against consisted of 'because it appears in X reference work, therefore it is an opera', which examination of the sources do not support. Grove Dictionary of Opera, to which I have been directed by members of your Wikiproject as your project's standard work in such matters, gives it in a list of musicals and does not make a claim for it as an opera. The duration on Wikipedia is besides the point. Categorising a work and organising the article as if it were an opera gives undue emphasis to an extremely minoritarian reading. The source at the top says clearly and unambiguously that it is not an opera, after a long section examining precisely that question, and the multitude of sources, recordings, etc. demonstrate unambigously that the scholarly consensus does not consider it an opera. You can't be seriously proposing that the appropriate translation for Stücke mit Musik is opera? We have an appropriate category already in place--it is Category:Musicals by Kurt Weill. Which is what the overwhelming majority of sources support. Nrswanson laid out the reasons why not very clearly above. Our job is not to decide what we imagine is its most appropriate categorisation. Our job is to reflect the general scholarly consensus.  • DP •  {huh?} 03:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the long list of sources you give are books on musicals, and predominantly American musicals. Does the author of Milwaukee's Live Theater have any expertise to decide what is and what is not an opera? Of course not. Whatever it is, the work is not an American musical, so all your effort compiling this list was wasted, I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the argument, I am afraid. The sources all explicitly describe it as a musical. That is what Wikipedia requires us to demonstrate. No mention of "opera" is made--for obvious reasons. The sources include many books about American Musicals because that's going to be one of the major places in which a German-language musical that won awards on Broadway as a musical might be discussed. No claim that it is an American musical was made. All are reliable third-party sources. That there is also a source that spends a section discussing just this question and concludes that it's a musical simply confirms that fact. Recent productions, such as that at the Royal National Theatre also confirm it. As I indicated on the Project page, you are welcome to compile a list of sources that explictly describe it as an "opera" as these all do as a "musical", if you are able to locate them. (Or, productions at notable opera houses?) Such an eccentric view, though, is unlikely to match the overwhelming consensus assessment. Category:Musicals by Kurt Weill. is where it belongs.  • DP •  {huh?} 03:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources categorising this work as a musical; that has never been disputed. However, From The New Grove Dictionary of Opera (note the title) "Dreigroschenoper, Die" (Stephen Hinton):
  • "The opera ends with the ‘Drittes Dreigroschenfinale’ ..."
  • "Die Dreigroschenoper has been described (H. Keller) as ‘the weightiest possible lowbrow opera for highbrows and the most full-blooded highbrow musical for lowbrows’. For Weill it was not just ‘the most consistent reaction to Wagner’; it also marked a positive step towards an operatic reform. By explicitly and implicitly shunning the more earnest traditions of the opera house, Weill created a mixed form which incorporated spoken theatre and popular musical idioms. Parody of operatic convention – of Romantic lyricism and happy endings – constitutes a central device. The through-composed music drama is replaced by the Urform (‘prototype’) of the number principle. Rather than carry the drama forward the music stops the action in its tracks in a way comparable to opera seria." (already cited shorter at WT:WikiProject Opera); this is also cited in the Bloomsbury study guide on The Threepenny Opera.
Then there's the question of venue. Of course, it's mainly performed in theatres, but also in opera houses. Salzburger Festspiele (2015); Theater an der Wien (2016) with Angelika Kirchschlager & Anne Sofie von Otter – in a series followed by Fidelio & Idomeneo; Kammeroper Frankfurt (2015); Opernhaus Magdeburg with stage actors but with the Magdeburg Philharmonie (2012); Victorian Opera (Melbourne) with Richard Gill conducting (2011) and nomited for Helpmann Award for Best Opera. The New York City Opera cancelled its planned run in 1952 because of McCarthyism. Leonard Bernstein, who straddles several genres as well, conducted it in 1952. In 1972, a production with opera singers was mounted at the Asolo in Sarasota. – In a way, this line of argument is of course quite pointless because opera house also perform bona fide musicals these days, but it shows that reputable sources can be found for almost anything.
I maintain, "There's nothing new in the dilemma of categorising this work." Sources can be found for more than one category and there's nothing "misleading" in that; on the contrary, it's encyclopedic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. As I keep saying, no one has objected to it being described or categorized as a musical at all. Do any of these sources specifically say it is not an opera? You say not. That is the question we are discussing, and the assertion you are making. It is not me who misunderstands the argument. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera[edit]

Discussions whether The Threepenny Opera is indeed an opera took place in June 2007 and January 2009. There were arguments in both directions, 3 in favour, 1 against in 2007; 4 in favour, 2 against in 2009. The arguments in favour cited several opera reference works which list it, the argument against in 2007 was that it doesn't sound like an opera and is performed in venues other than opera houses, in 2009 that a) it just isn't; b) it's an important piece of theatre history; and c) doesn't conform with OED's definition of "opera", which I just looked up: "A dramatic musical work in which singing forms an essential part, chiefly consisting of recitatives, arias, and choruses, with orchestral accompaniment; a performance of such a work; a libretto or musical score for such a work."

Today, without discussion, one of the opponents from 2009, User:DionysosProteus, removed all opera-related categories: (long) diff, edit summary: "Reordering and cats". I don't see why several classes of categories – theatre, musical theatre,opera – can't all be applied here, in part because banners for projects of those areas are on the article's talk page, and of course because of the for arguments in previous discussions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Just revert. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are, I assume inadvertently, misrepresenting the source. Grove does not say that it's an opera. On the contrary, in the list of "Operas, Operettas, Musicals and Ballets", it is described as "play with music". (Grove 1980 v.20, 309). The arguments against calling it an opera are that, as the image in the article states unambiguously, as does the lede, that it is a "play with music", or a musical. The categorisation in place is OR. A search on Youtube for recordings offers a common-sense based definition as well. No one who has actually experienced the work imagines it's an opera. Our article ought not to mislead its readers with a false categorisation, regardless of a Wikiproject's (false) sense of ownership.  • DP •  {huh?} 16:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Michael Bednarek and Johnbod on this. "No one who has actually experienced the work imagines it's an opera"? I'd like to see a source for this if it is a serious argument. Otherwise it's just WP:OR. Oxford Music Online cites Hans Keller as describing the work as follows : ‘the weightiest possible lowbrow opera for highbrows and the most full-blooded highbrow musical for lowbrows’. If Keller can imagine it as an opera that's good enough for me. That doesn't stop it being other things as well, as course, but there is no case here for Wiki-Puritanism. OMO also says by the way "Rather than carry the drama forward the music stops the action in its tracks in a way comparable to opera seria." So of course it should be categroized as an opera along with any other appropriate categorizations.--Smerus (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What nonsense! It is always included in reference works on opera, which of course in no way precludes it being in other works on plays. Many early operas have similar forms. Johnbod (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antony and Cleopatra has comic elements, without it being a comedy. There are forty sources on the talk page for your perusal that should clear up the confusion.  • DP •  {huh?} 00:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't - we can't see what they say, and they are nearly all books on musicals etc claiming it as their own, as equivalent books on opera also do. Not all as RSs either. No one is asking that musicals categories are removed. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I selected each and every one of the more than forty sources, all of which are reliable, third-party sources, on Google books, precisely so that you could. If I was able to confirm that each one said that it is a musical, then so, too, are you. I have not selected sources from an academic library for precisely that reason--though the overwhelming majority there, too, would concur. You are welcome to provide a list of sources that explicitly say that it is an opera, if you are able to locate them. The categorisation indicated by the general scholarly consensus is Category:Musicals by Kurt Weill. You are welcome, too, to indicate which specific sources in that long list are unreliable and why, too.  • DP •  {huh?} 03:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that DP just doesn't understand that a topic may belong to more than one category. The 'ownership' aspect of this discussion is entirely on his side. The fact that he selected 40 sources so as to reinforce his own view makes this clear. No one in this project has argued that the article should be categorised exclusively as opera. I refer again to the quote from the respected music critic Hans Keller which I cite above - indicating that the work can be viewed (and heard) both as an opera and a musical - which I think effectively closes the discussion.--Smerus (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It took me one second to find this about the work in question in The Faber Pocket Guide to Opera, by the oepra critic Rupert Christiansen.--Smerus (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Has the work ever been, or been widely, performed in standard opera venues? Such as, the Met, the ROH, the standard continental European opera venues such as La Scala, Vienna State Opera, major German opera houses, etc.? That's generally one way we determine the difference between musicals, operettas, and operas. Some works are indeed crossovers and have been performed in both or all three types of venues (e.g. Candide, Treemonisha, Trouble in Tahiti, some Viennese operettas, some Gilbert and Sullivan works, etc.). I'd say it's fairly clear that if a major work has never been performed at an opera house, it is not an opera. I'm not trying to fan the dispute here, but I think this is an issue that may merit re-visiting, with an actual RFC rather than an endless inconclusive thread. Softlavender (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I elaborated a bit on that aspect of the discussion at Talk:The Threepenny Opera, but that line seems a bit pointless to me. Opera houses perform musical theatre works quite regularly; is My Fair Lady now an opera that it's been given at the Sydney Opera House? OTOH, if a opera has never been performed at the Met etc. doesn't make them non-operas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said or implied that being performed at the Met was a requisite for a work being an opera. I specifically said "I'd say it's fairly clear that if a major work has never been performed at an opera house, it is not an opera." In terms of the Sydney Opera House, unlike other opera houses, it regularly stages musicals. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a new one on me that an opera has by definition to be performed at an opera house. Isn't this just a bit pointy? (How about, e.g. Found and Lost?). Nevertheless, look here at Operabase for performances of the 'Threepenny Opera' since 2014 alone, which include Amarillo Opera, Tacoma Opera, Opera du Toulon, Theater an der Wien, etc. etc.--Smerus (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I said "major work", not "opera". Found and Lost is most definitely not a major work, having only been performed in one venue ever. Softlavender (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, but the serious point I was making is that a quick look at Operabase shows that Dreigroschenoper had been performed at a number of opera venues in the past two o three years alone.--Smerus (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Steven Sondheim was once asked whether Sweeney Todd was an opera or a musical. His response was it depends on where its playing and who is performing it. When Sweeney is done on Broadway using musical theater performers and conventions it is a musical. When it is performed in an opera house using opera singers and opera conventions it is an opera. There are certain works that bridge both genres and what makes them fit in one genre may not be what is actually written on the page but how the work is translated in performance. The same may be true for The Threepenny Opera. I personally would choose to use both musical and opera categories for the article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a parallel discussion going on at the talk page. I have copied all this section over there. Please continue the discussion there. Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer[edit]

The answer to this discussion is to create a new section in the article, 'Opera or musical', presenting the arguments on each side (and retaining all the existing classifications), without taking an assertive stand one way or the other. There is more than enough material above to enable this. If editors are willing I will attempt to write this.--Smerus (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to destroy Wikipedia's beloved culture of dramah if you keep making constructive comments like that.
Thumbs up icon Thank you for proposing and offering. That would be wonderful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've added something which should satisfy everyone (famous last words...) by accentuating the ambiguity of the work's genre.--Smerus (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. Thank you Smerus.4meter4 (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid it is quite unsatisfactory, however, giving a hopelessly biased and undue emphasis to the tiny minority of critics who describe it as an opera. That bias has been the problem all along. The current arrangement misleads any casual reader.  • DP •  {huh?} 01:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As people keep telling you, a large majority of writers on opera are happy to describe it as an opera (noting differences to the norm), just as a large majority of writers on musicals are happy to describe it as a musical (noting ditto), and writers on theatre are happy to call it a play with music (noting ditto). Only you insist on an exclusivity that just isn't there. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Johnbod. Many serious publications on this work describe it as an opera; see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. One source goes as far as designating the work as a hybrid between opera and musical theater [6]. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen, in another discussion, a link to Wikipedia:Genre warrior, a new one to me. Hmmm. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there’s a kind of “definition erosion” that is very common to Wikipedia, that we need to avoid. It’s important for WP articles to define their subject as well as possible, and then be prepared to face the erosion that comes from those who want to “loosen up” the definition to allow other meanings -- meanings that in fact shouldn’t be there. I think so. The reason Wikipedia is especially vulnerable to definition-erosion, may be because first, the impulse to include “all and any” ideas seems like a nice “democratic impulse”, and second, that impulse is combined with the democratic nature of Wikipedia itself. Then, third, add the idiomatic use of the word “opera” that Macheath and Brecht intend, and that sources often use, and it can all become a recipe for mud. And that’s really the danger with definition-erosion: meanings become muddied -- consider the unforeseen consequences, that future discussions that have anything to do with opera can become muddied as well. Frankly, I’ve seen Threepenny Opera performed, and it doesn’t seem to me to be an opera at all, not by any stretch of the imagination. And I think — considering Brecht’s ideas about opera and his criticisms of opera — it is healthier for his & Weill's creation to stay out of the heavy leg-irons of that kind of misattribution. I respectfully don’t agree at all with Smerus’s solution, though I appreciate the thought behind it. But it seems too far-fetched to me. I think we should leave the debate on the talk pages. Biderbeck (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We just follow the sources - all of them, not a sample from one specialism. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If recognised authorities have expressed opinions then we should represent them in the article. We are not here to be censors, or to enter them only according to our personal views. The main thing is that the article which as it stands is frankly not very good (lists of productions, people who have recorded songs, calling it 'epic theatre' with only a link to explain what that means, inadequate sourcing of comments.....) If a fraction of energy in pointless debate here had been spent on improving the article, we could all congratulate ourselves.--Smerus (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Johnbod, 4meter4 and Smerus for the reasons I already gave in the prev. discussion above. DP, you have been fighting this war for over 7 years. There ought to be an "enough is enough" rule that prohibits the same person from bringing up the same discussion that they have lost over and over again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This work is included under the "opera" subheading in the "1001 Classical Recordings you must hear before you die" book by Matthew Rye for what it is worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. 123453334 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Threepenny Opera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Number of performances may be even higher than stated[edit]

We say, "By 1933… the play had been translated into 18 languages and performed more than 10,000 times on European stages," but Douglas Jarman, Kurt Weill: An Illustrated Biography (Indiana University Press, 1982, ISBN 025314650, p. 48-49 says, "According to Heinsheimer, the piece was performed more than ten times every day during its first year, achieving some 42,000 performances during one single year." Cited there to Hans Heinsheimer, Menagerie in F Sharp (T V Boardman & Co, New York, 1949). A bit hard to say where in Heinsheimer to look, because Jarman's endnotes are numbered within each chapter like footnotes, but there are no footnote numbers in the main text. - Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel: I can't find anything like that in Hans Heinsheimer's Menagerie in F Sharp. Maybe you will have more luck. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Michael Bednarek: I don't have a copy. Maybe p. 139, if I can guess correctly which unattached citation it would be? - Jmabel | Talk 15:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Changing pings after posting doesn't work; see Template:Reply to/doc.) I provided a link to a free online copy of Heinsheimer's book above. Pages 139ff, in chapter "The Sweet Cup of Success", deal with Johnny spielt auf. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ideology of the play[edit]

though the play is a socialist critique of capitalist society Arendt characterises it's reception differently in her work "The Origins of Totalitarianism" She writes, "The play presented gangsters as respectable businessmen and respectable businessmen as gangsters. The irony was somewhat lost when respectable businessmen in the audience considered this a deep insight into the ways of the world and when the mob welcomed it as an artistic sanction of gangsterism. The theme song in the play, “Erst kommt das Fressen, dann kommt die Moral,” was greeted with frantic applause by exactly everybody, though for different reasons. The mob applauded because it took the statement literally; the bourgeoisie applauded because it had been fooled by its own hypocrisy for so long that it had grown tired of the tension and found deep wisdom in the expression of the banality by which it lived; the elite applauded because the unveiling of hypocrisy was such superior and wonderful fun. The effect of the work was exactly the opposite of what Brecht had sought by it. The bourgeoisie could no longer be shocked; it welcomed the exposure of its hidden philosophy, whose popularity proved they had been right all along, so that the only political result of Brecht’s “revolution” was to encourage everyone to discard the uncomfortable mask of hypocrisy and to accept openly the standards of the mob." (page 335) Hauntedturtle5 (talk) 02:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps they liked the music? Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha Hauntedturtle5 (talk) 05:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Threepenny_Opera&oldid=1212754334"