This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2003

"Butterfly" and "Madama"

There is something about this opera I have never understood. I refer to the use of the very word "Butterfly".

The heroine's Japanese name is rendered in English transliteration as "Cho-Cho-San", and in Italian transliteration as "Cio-Cio-San". Her name translates to "Butterfly" in English, and whatever the Italian word for "butterfly" is, in Italian. Why then, is she called by the English word "Butterfly" in an Italian opera? All of Pinkerton's other words are translated into Italian in the context of the opera, so why not this word?? It's not as if "Butterfly" was the name she was given at birth - "Butterfly" is simply Pinkerton's name for her.

Also, if we are going to use an English title, it should be "Madam Butterfly", and if we are going to use an Italian title, it should be "Madama (whatever the Italian word is)". But what we do have is a bit of a foot in both camps.

To me, this is equivalent to talking about "La Bohemian" or "The Barber di Siviglia" or "Lucy di Lammermoor" or 'Die Zauber Flute" or ..... you know what I mean. Can anybody enlighten me on this profoundly important question? Cheers JackofOz 06:58, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are right. Madama Butterfly (original title) also seems to be most common in English, although Madame Butterfly is used by a quite significant minority. But Madama surely would be most correct. I move the page. Nico 07:12, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think I can answer this question: It was purposefully "Anglicized" because of the 'romantic' theme of America. In a clever slight of hand, the play is presented as an American encounter of Japan, not an Italian or otherwise European one. Not speaking Japanese (or Italian) is what was imagined as 'typical' for the 'arrogant' American by the Puccini. This ties in with the historical context: Europe's fears/curiosity with the rise of two powers: America and Japan, and Europe's worries about its own future, and or decline. One can also see some self-reflection about Europe's own colonialist encounters in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere--but it is put in the 'safe' contect of two foreign parties (US and Japan) rather than a more direct confrontation (say, UK and China). This is one theory, at least, for the decidedly "American meets Japan" flavor given to the play, and indeed, the title. Willowx 08:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Just speculation, but could Puccini, or contemporary Italian audiences, have had a partiality for "foreign" titles? La Boheme is French, Madama Butterfly and La fanciulla del West both have English words in their titles, although there are Italian words that could be used in both cases.Herbivore 03:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually they (we...) didn't. With some exception for French titles. Note the Italian form "Madama". In his letters, Puccini talked about "La fanciulla del West" as "La Girl", but the final title used the Italian word "Fanciulla". --Al Pereira (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Look at the actual libretto. Even though the characters sometimes refer to Cio-Cio San as just that, she is more often referenced as "Butterfly" which sticks out of the surrounding Italian (Eg. "Chiamerà Butterfly dalla lontana" in Un bel di). The title is merely reflecting the inclusion of a few English phrases in to the opera (Eg. America Forever). --Alexs letterbox 22:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an opera about Japan and US. Simply, tthe protagonist is "Cio-Cio-San" for the Japanese and "Butterfly" for the Americans. At a certian point, she calls herself "Butterfly" because she believes she is an American Lady. Puccini used "Butterfly" instead of "Farfalla" (It. translation) just to give the US point of view. --Al Pereira (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

When Pinkerton speaks to (or of) Cio-Cio-San he uses the English word. When comparing her to a butterfly, he uses the Italian "farfalla". Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation about "Madamma" and "Butterfly" may be simplist and an offspring of an ignorant mind; however, I'll take the risk of sharing: "Madamma" stands for Geisha and in contraposition of "Mademoiselle" because Cio Cio San is married to Pinkerton yet she is (was) a Geisha. Butterfly, has two senses: is fragile and delicated, but also has passed a metamorphose process. To me, explicitelly reflects the fragility of inocence and vitue, and implicitly accuses the destructive power of cowardice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.125.33.104 (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

2005

Madama vs Madame

I know Google is only a rough guide, but I got 239,000 hits for "Madame Butterfly" vs 207,000 for "Madama Butterfly". I got 44,000 for "Madam Butterfly". It's not enough of a preponderance for me to feel obliged to move it back, but it appears that "Madame Butterfly" has the edge in common usage. Robert A West 07:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Only just read this today. I agree. No change is required. "Madama" seems to have become the standard and official way of referring to the opera. It's always been billed as such on any productions I've been to or have been aware of. And CDs are always titled "Madama". But "Madame" (or just plain "Madam") is just as much used colloquially, eg. by radio announcers (although even they are tending to switch to "Madama" these days). Cheers JackofOz 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The point is that the opera has one only title and this title is Madama Butterfly. Madama is italian, Madame is French: Puccini hadn't any reason to use the French form. Al pereira 04:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing about this one. But I would suggest that as a general proposition, it is acceptable to translate a title of an opera, ballet, film, play, or book into other languages. In relation to opera titles being translated into English:

some are always or nearly always translated, eg. "The Marriage of Figaro", "The Mastersingers of Nuremberg", "The Cunning Little Vixen", "The Queen of Spades", "The Merry Wives of Windsor"
some are never translated even though perfectly good translations may exist, eg. "Der Rosenkavalier", "Pagliacci", "Cavalleria Rusticana", "Il Trovatore", "La Traviata", "Cosi fan tutte"
some are sometimes translated: "Madame Butterfly" is clearly encountered in significant numbers along with "Madama Butterfly"; "Die Entfuhrung aus dem Serail" would mean little to most music lovers in English-speaking countries, but they would recognise the Italian shortened version "Il Seraglio" and would also certainly recognise the English equivalent "The Abduction from the Seraglio" or, less often, "The Abduction from the Harem".

So I don't really think it is possible to say that an opera has only one title. Maybe only one original title, but the world is not confined to only using the original titles of things. If it were, we'd be calling Tchaikovsky's Pathétique Symphony his "Shestaya Sinfoniya - Pateticheskaya". JackofOz 03:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand. Anyway, the first English piano score was entitled Madam Butterfly and later it was sometimes used the French form Madame in Germany and England. Madame Butterfly is the title of David Belasco's play and Madam Butterfly is the title of Long's tale. Obviously, there is no reason to don't use the original Madama since it is perfectly understable and largely used between English-language people. Al pereira 12:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If we were serious about anglicising it, we would call it "Mrs Butterfly". I think that would be universally derided.--Hugh7 00:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(I would not call "The Marriage of Figaro" a translation, but rather a mis-translation that overlooks the English-language distinction between "marriage" and "wedding", while French (the language of the play) uses only the cognate "mariage" for both concepts. In any case, Italian makes the same distinction as English: "matrimonio" versus "nozze".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

2006

Complementary information

This website contains other information about the Mma Butterfly opera, like:

"Madame Chrysanthème is the first-person narrative of a young naval officer, Pierre, who enters into a temporary marriage with a geisha while stationed in Japan. The loosely autobiographical novel (Loti himself had a temporary Japanese wife) details the "little adventure" from his arrival in Nagasaki -- including his engagement of a marriage broker, his relationship with Chrysanthème, and his eventual departure. The central character here is clearly Pierre; he is every bit as callous as the Pinkerton of Puccini's first Act. Chrysanthème is practical, unemotional and secondary. They part amicably; the final scenes portray the geisha testing the silver dollars she received in fulfillment of the marriage contract and a rather tepid leave-taking:

Come my little mousmee [the term used by the French for their Japanese wives], let us part good friends. Let us even embrace, if you wish. I took you for my own amusement and, although you may not have been a total success, you gave me what you could: your little body, your respect, and your quaint music. All in all, you have been sweet enough in your Nipponese way. And, who knows, perhaps I shall think of you from time to time, in a roundabout way, when I recall this glorious summer, the pretty gardens, and the music of the cicadas."

Also, I would like to add that the subject of criticizes is dwarfed by the love story. I'm not sure that nowadays people care a lot for the Veronese political background of Romeo and Juliet. And, according to the above text from Lotti, in all events this story actually happened. I take time to mention this because those criticize are or anedcdotic or unsourced, and are out of proportion with the lack of featured general interesting and otherwise positive information about this beautifull opera. -Unsigned

Unfortunately, even though the opera is not specifically Japanese in its themes, and could easily be applied to many other countries, some people can not see past what they see as racism (for want of a better word). The same problems plagued Porgy and Bess. While the criticisms section does eclipse any other relevant information, it is still necessary to explain the opinion and matain a NPOV. --203.129.42.78 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Further information

Further information can be found in Cinematic realism, reflexivity and the American ‘Madame Butterfly’ narratives. Here is an excerpt, detailing previous works:

1887 Madame Chrysanthème, Pierre Loti, novel

1893 Madame Chrysanthème, mus. André Messager, opera based on Loti

1898 Madame Butterfly, John Luther Long, short story

1900 Madame Butterfly, David Belasco (based on Long), mus. William Furst, melodrama

1901 A Japanese Nightingale, Onoto Watanna (Winnifred Eaton), novel

1903 A Japanese Nightingale, William Young (based on Eaton), mus. N. Clifford Page, melodrama

1904 Madama Butterfly, mus. Giacomo Puccini, opera, revised 1906

1915 Madame Butterfly, dir. Sidney Olcott, silent film

1916 ‘Poor Butterfly’, w. John Golden, mus. Raymond Hubbell, popular song

1918 His Birthright, dir. Sessue Hayakawa, silent film

1919 Harakiri, dir. Fritz Lang, silent film

1922 Toll of the Sea, dir. Chester Franklin, cue sheet by Ernst Luz, silent film

1932 Madame Butterfly, dir. Marion Gering, mus. W. Franke Harling, sound film

1934 One Night of Love, dir. Victor Schertzinger, mus. Schertzinger and Gus Kahn, sound film

1936 Il sogno di Butterfly/Premiere der Butterfly, dir. Carmine Gallone, sound film

1939 First Love, dir. Henry Koster, mus. Charles Previn and H. J. Salter, sound film

1950 The Toast of New Orleans, dir. Norman Taurog, mus. Nicholas Brodszky, sound film

1952 Japanese War Bride, dir. King Vidor, mus. Emil Newman, sound film

1955 Madama Butterfly, dir. Gallone, Italian-Japanese production, film-opera

1957 Sayonara, dir. Joshua Logan, mus. Franz Waxman, sound film

1962 My Geisha, dir. Jack Cardiff, mus. Waxman, sound film

1974 Madama Butterfly, dir. Jean-Pierre Ponnelle, film-opera

1984 Fans, Malcolm McLaren, concept album

1987 Fatal Attraction, dir. Adrian Lyne, mus. Maurice Jarre, sound film

1988 Butterfly, Paul Loewen, novel

1988 M. Butterfly, David Henry Hwang, play

1989 Miss Saigon, mus. Claude-Michel Schönberg, musical

1993 M. Butterfly, dir. David Cronenberg, mus. Howard Shore, sound film

1993 Household Saints, dir. Nancy Savoca, mus. Stephen Endelman, sound film

1995 Madama Butterfly, dir. Frédéric Mitterrand, film-opera

1996 Pinkerton, Weezer, concept album

Although, that article focuses on movies, it is still a powerfull source for various informations. --Discoleo 14:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

Mikado connection?

Hey, I just watched this opera last night, and I noticed section of music that bore a remarkable resemblence to a song in The Mikado. Compare the entrance of Yamadori with "Mi-ya Sa-ma". Did Puccini borrow this as a tribute to the Mikado, or are both sections based off the same Japanese song? Either way it would be interesting to say something about this in the article. That may be true, considering they are similar. However, I couldn't find any resources on the internet which state that it was 'copied' from Mikado, so I think it's safer to not add that information until a source actually states. You made a great observation, though. -Unsigned

They are both from the same song. --Alexs letterbox 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I heard on a MET broadcast feature that Puccini actually purchased an orchestral score of The Mikado for inspiration on writing Oriental (!) music - .Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

"Since the 1990s, many have criticized or analyzed Madama Butterfly as part of a colonialist project of creating images of Asia." I feel this needs to be re-worded or discarded, on many levels. (I know it has been discussed below, but it warrants having its own discussion section here.) First of all, since we haven't a single source or citation (other than mention of the transgender mystery/romance play M. Butterfly, which is certainly hardly an academic source or entirely relevant criticism in my opinion), we really need to eliminate the word "many" and change it to "some" or another more accurate word. Secondly, for anyone, critics or otherwise, to call the opera "part of a colonialist project" is an absurdity or a gross exaggeration. If this sentence must remain, the wording must be changed in my opinion. Need to either add the word "possibly," or "reflective of" or some other major qualifier, because to acuse the opera itself of such doesn't fly. Puccini composed the opera after falling in love with the Belasco play (which was based on true 19th century historical events) -- because he felt it was a heartbeaking love story. The Italian librettists were not part of colonialist plot. If anything, the play and opera are designed to reveal racists attitudes, not to create them. Most Japanese I know love the opera, because of its intense pro-Japanese bias. To claim that "many" criticize it as part of a project is at best unfounded and unsourced, and at worst misleading. I think the most that can be said on this subject is that the libretto reflects the attitudes of its time (i.e., the late 19th century source story), and that to try to retro-fit it to meet modern (turn of the 21st century) international relationships would be a disservice, unnecessary, and historically inaccurate.

Lastly, I have to echo the person below who complained that the "Criticisms" section of the article is overpoweringly long, especially compared to the rest of the article. Why don't we shorten it -- or if not, call the section "Historical context" rather than "Criticisms" (or, to compromise, "Historical context and criticisms"). The opera and libretto are so potently anti-American that I can't see why this has gotten so much (unsourced!) air-time in the article, especially with such overstated wording, and especially compared with the length of the rest of the article. Not saying necessarily it shouldn't be there at all, but I am saying some wording definitely needs to be changed or eliminated. ~ AV, 27 Jan 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.192.64.14 (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

The criticism section as it is reads terribly anyway. It's as if somebody with a chip on their shoulder just thought they'd wedge it in there. It should be included as part of a broader thematic overview, I think. The stories of Madame Butterfly and Loti's earlier work, along with all the similar ones, have just become stock ammunition for the general Orientalist narrative, which in this case goes something like 'culturally ignorant white male Western artists were willing to simplify East Asia to the point at which it became a fantasy land of young virginal girls who were both easily obtained and discarded upon departure'.

To be honest with you, I think it can be taken as a given in the case of Madame Butterfly, and left to articles concerned with Orientalism, Colonialism and Western cultural exchanges with East Asia for its elaboration. To open a new section to allude to its place as a 'colonialist' text (whatever that means exactly) is really not worth it. Besides, the progenitor of most of these themes was Loti. Gunstar hero 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"In recent years, some critics have begun to see the opera through the lens of European colonialism and racism, particularly in its depiction of Japanese culture. Others emphasize the anti-American sentiment of a story in which the tragic outcome is initiated by the thoughtless actions of a U.S. naval officer. Certainly, the opera does take an exotic and critical view of both Japan and the United States, but in the end, it is the intimate, personal scale of the outcome that audiences remember. The opera unfolds as a cautionary tale. Butterfly’s death reminds us of the potential costs found in the meeting of cultures and of the importance of acting responsibly in an increasingly global world. Both themes are especially relevant in today’s world of travel, commerce, and instant communication." Andrew Eggert, at <http://www.operaamerica.org/Content/Archive/OnlineLearning/butterfly/weekfour/pagefour.html>.

Given the patent errors in the current section, I am removing the current section and invite scholars and editors to rewrite the section in its entirety with cites. Oconnell usa (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the connection between the text you removed from the article and the paragraph above? What are the "patent errors in the current section"? How does the paragraph above explain removing the section "Criticism"? Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Jagai

Hi, I have a question. I am studying music history, but my textbook says that Madame Butterfly killed herself by jagai, not seppuku -Unsigned

If jagai is stabbing oneself in the neck then that is true. --Alexs letterbox 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"jigai" is just a word for suicide. Using a dictionary I was able to find "jikei" and "jifun" as both meaning suicide by slitting one's own throat, but I have no experience with these words.219.160.37.186 (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)DK

Madame Butterfly and The Collegian

About twenty years ago, I performed a speech as part of a public speaking class. I recall the speech being titled "Madame Butterfly and The Collegian" which discussed suicide among college students. I would love to obtain a copy of that speech. Anyone ever heard of this speech? 68.50.172.12 02:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)K.I.

Why colonialism?

I don't see how an opera that encourages the audience to sympathize with the victim and despise the exploiter can be said to glorify colonialism. If anything it could be interpreted as an attack on colonialism (and the Freni/Domingo movie did just that, overkilling the idea by making the sympathetic Sharpless a drunkard). As for Cio-Cio-San's submissiveness and gullibility, this can probably be attributed to fact that she is a defenseless 15-year-old of the 19th century with no adult guidance or protection, rather than the fact that she is Japanese. I believe that even the M. Butterfly author retracted some of his criticisms after becoming more familiar with the opera, deciding that the opera's reputation itself had gotten stereotyped. CharlesTheBold 17:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is not whether we agree with the criticism--the question is whether the play has been criticized by notable critics. It seems that it has; the criticism section mentions a couple. It's not clear why that section has an original research tag; what is actually original research is deciding whether or not to include criticism based on whether it accords with our personal interpretations. I'm going to remove the tag. Nareek 02:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

2008

Selected recordings. Any criteria to establish which are included?

Nareek removed the entire box and asked the question re: criteria. I suggested to him that he post a comment here before removing it in future. We are hardly an advertising service by simply including a group of recordings. There are no links to commercial sites to obtain these recordings, no obvious attempt to advertise. Are there other criteria which could apply? Viva-Verdi (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is unsourced. Bring some sources which can establish that the recording being mentioned can be really "selective" and noteworthy to mention. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of the recordings box will now be found a source for these entries. It is Amanda Holden's "New Penguin Opera Guide".Viva-Verdi (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In cases like these I think it's always bad to delete. If you think the selection criteria are flawed the best thing to do is to add some more items to make the list more balanced. Best to all. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete "Notes"

Someone had posted a new section in the article called "Notes", which stated, in its entirety, "Other sources give these roles as follows:- Emilio Venturini - Yamadori, Paolo Wulmann - Lo Zio Bonzo, Antonio Volpini - Yakusidé". There is no cite and the Note was not a ref to any text. Therefore, I moved the entire section from the article to this Talk page, until the section can be corrected and then re-inserted. Oconnell usa (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The notes section was added several months ago to a previous incarnation of this page as a solution to the problem of differing sources not agreeing on whom the original performers were for the roles stated. We now have a much more precise cast list on this page referenced to a source that states the same thing with a (?) against the roles rather than a page showing the sources that differ on this issue and how they differ. As seems often to be the case on some Wikipedia pages, some editors will insist on black and white even where things are actually grey. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. On this basis, should we agree to delete the "Notes" section? 71.108.121.154 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry -- forgot to login -- it's me Oconnell usa (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamadori = tenor or baritone?

On 083008, editor Nrswanson changed the article to show that the role of Yamador is sung by a tenor, rather than a baritone, because, according to Nrswanson, his/her score lists the role as a tenor. Unfortunately, Nrswanson gave not cite for the claim. The role in the Ricordi score is listed as a baritone. However, I have no other citations as to this issue.

Rather than undo the Nrswanson claim because it is uncited, and in light of the fact that Nrswanson's page shows that s/he has expertise in music, I have moved the discussion here, with the hope that an expert can clarify the question with citations. But let's get this resolved quickly. Thanks. Oconnell usa (talk) 23:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have 2 recordings of Madama Butterlfy and in both, the role Yamadori was played by baritones. I also have done searching for other recordings, so far, I have not seen any tenors for the role. Since some of us here subscribed with The Grove, what does it says? - Jay (talk) 04:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Very easy: being written in G-Clef, it's obviously written for Tenor, even if I know for sure that both Tenors and Baritones sing this role. --Al Pereira (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

An obvious solution: Whateve the score (Puccini himself) designates (tenor or baritone) should be shown for the role, and then a footnote should be added to state that the role is often sung by the other, with both examples and cites. 71.108.121.154 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have messaged Nrswanson to reply here - Jay (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know Jay. I am looking at my score of Madama Butterfly (Ricordi Publisher, 2000, ISBN 978-0634019449) and the role is marked as a tenor in the score. Also, in my opinion the range/tessitura of the role, although in the reach of some baritones, seems to be more in line with a tenor role. The role creator was also a tenor which seems to clinch the matter.Nrswanson (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bimba, bimba non piangere

On 083108, Al deleted the aria "Viene la sera" and added the duet "Bimba, bimba, non piangere", stating that the former is merely part of the latter. I believe that Al is correct in part but wrong in part, for the following reasons. "Viene la sera" is not a serparate aria but is part of a larger duet. However, the duet in question is not "Bimba, bimba, non piangere" but the duet "Vogliatemi bene" (which is discussed below).

Although the separation of the arias and duets is debatable, since Puccini himself did not designate them as separate from the whole, they are performed as separate works. See, for example, the Leinsdorf 1962 recording, which includes as separate tracks (and the length of each track): "Bimba, bima, no piangere" (5:25), which is followed by "Bimba dagli occhi" (4:00), which is followed by "Vogliatemi bene" (7:06).

Thus, I believe that each of these three works should be classified as separate arias and duets. However, I will defer making this change until Al and others provide their views and cites. Oconnell usa (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

No way. The duet starts with the words "Bimba, bimba non piangere". Then there are lots of sections. "Vogliatemi bene" is just a section, absolutely not an aria. I don't understand why do you say that "Vogliatemi bene" is the Duet. The tracks of an ol LP don't mean anything. --Al Pereira (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Vogliatemi bene is a part of the duet Viene la sera! (see Noted arias and duets) --Al Pereira (talk) 09:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously: please, delete that absurd article Vogliatemi bene. It's only a section of the love duet. How can exist an (empty!) article on a single section of a duet?? --Al Pereira (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to resolve the problem times ago [1] but "obviously" somebody did a rollback. On en.wiki it needs a lot of time to demonstrate the most obvious things. --Al Pereira (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I have redirect it agian. Let see from here - Jay (talk) 05:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Let see. Thanks --Al Pereira (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, I agree with Al and Jay that the separate article should be deleted. I note in addition that the article lacks cites and substance (i.e. without the inclusion of the lyrics, almost nothing of substance remains). For additional and historical reference, I am including a link to the original talk page[2]. As others have noted, if the information about the duet is worthy of encyclopaedic treatment, then it should be included here, in the main article, at least until there is enough substance (as in the case of Nessun Dorma) to sustain a separate article. Oconnell usa (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the links to "Vogliatemi bene" in both the main article and in this Talk page, since the redirect created loop-backs. Oconnell usa (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I consolidated the discussion of the duet into this single section Oconnell usa (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Al is correct: the "Love Duet" does indeed include the three separate "duets" described in the article. See, for example the Leinsdorf 1962 recording, the libretto for which does describe the three sections as one "Love Duet". Oconnell usa (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Duet has the following form (I use numbers for the closed section):

Bimba, bimba non piangere [...]
1) Viene la sera
2) Bimba dagli occhi pieni di malia
3) Stolta paura
Adesso voi, siete per me l'occhio del firmamento [...]
4) Vogliatemi bene
Dicon ch'oltre mare [...]
3a) Via dall'anima in pena
5) Dolce notte! Quante stelle!

This is an incredibly complex duet. --Al Pereira (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

When Al Pereira returns, I hope that he will greatly clarify and expand on his previous paragraph about the duet, so that his explanation (with cites) can be included in the main article. Oconnell usa (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Leitmotifs

A scholar should include a new section about leitmotifs (sp?) in the opera. References are especially important -- preferably online references with audio exerpts of the motifs. Oconnell usa (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

2009

Length

At a glance, it almost looks like the entire play has been written out in this article. Is this necessary? Isn't there an external link which hosts this and we can limit the article to a summary of the play? Tyciol (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say it's necessary because 1) to understand the context of the excerpts and 2) it's one of the most frequently performed operas. That would underscore the desire to have a thorough understanding of the plot and the famous portions within it. -- kosboot (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)