Talk:Carmen

Added musical numbers to synopsis

I added musical numbers to the synopsis. Tim riley reverted with "We don't do this" as comment. I believe that the edit [1] improves following the musical content of the synopsis and would like to open for discussion. I personally found the article difficult to connect numbers to synopsis elements when I was checking a few things for a professional (musicological) talk and have certainly seen numbers referenced in many synopses of operas. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not how we do this sort of thing in Wikipedia, and I suggest we do not so here. Reverting to the status quo ante pending consensus here. These interpolated digits are unhelpful, and none of the FAC reviewers suggested such a thing. Tim riley talk 06:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Tim riley on this: the numbers would be confusing to too many readers and the article is better off without them. Looking at other highly rated operas on WP (Appalachian Spring, Thespis, Orpheus in the Underworld, Nixon in China, Noye's Fludde, L'incoronazione di Poppea and L'Orfeo) none of them are numbered, so I'm not sure of the benefit in adding them here. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• I also don't think that the numbering is a good idea in the plot narration. They hold it up, and are sequential anyway. - There is a complete list of numbers in the article, with titles and roles. - Appalachian Spring is a ballet. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • There is also the practical problem of having to scroll or navigate down through the 4,500 words of the seven intervening sections. A series of anchors and connexions for each number would remedy that, but I'd still be hesitant to emphasise the numbering, because not all editions give the same numbers: the ENO/Royal Opera Opera Guide to Carmen on my shelves gives "La cloche a sonné", for instance, as "No 3: Chorus and Scene" rather than No 4, as here, and "Nous avons en tête une affaire!" as No 14 rather than our 15. The main author of our article, the late Brian Boulton, very properly states clearly where his numbering comes from, and I see no reason to interfere with it, but given that other numberings are to be found I don't think we should make too much of the numbering here. – Tim riley talk 07:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    • I agree that having different numbering systems is another reason not to have them in the plot. In the Numbers section, they could be given also (for example in brackets), similarly to different numbering in works by Bach where often two systems are mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
      • I have not got a full or piano score of Carmen, but from the libretto contained in the ENO/Royal Opera guide I think the difference is that some texts give the prelude the label "No 1" and others do not, so that "Sur la place chacun passe" becomes No 1, "Avec la garde montante" No 2 and so forth. I could add a footnote accordingly if there is agreement here that this would be a good idea. Tim riley talk 08:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
        • If that is all the difference, it could be handled by a sentence on top or a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
          • If others agree, I can add a footnote. I suspect omitting "No 1" for the prelude is rare, but I shall see what I can discover when next at the British Library, as well as checking the numbering of the sung items in various editions. Tim riley talk 10:35, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
            • I would prefer to just to leave the synopsis as it is. Looking at the edit by Mscuthbert, some of the 'numbers' are omitted - that would inevitably lead to questions and more discussion here on what to do. As for 'various editions', my 1992 Schott full score provides "a correct text of the version of the opera as it was first performed on the stage - the only version of the work that was sanctioned by its authors, the composer and the librettists". (The Preface to that edition is well worth reading.) I would add that having "C'est les contrabandiers le refuge ordinaire" (presumably from Schirmer/Guiraud) as the opening words of Micaëla's act 3 air is a bit confusing. And - a very minor thing - there is a discrepancy in the spelling of 'Dancaïre' from the cast list and synopsis and the musical numbers. Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Not minor at all, and now attended to: well spotted and thank you! Tim riley talk 17:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for not being clear about the Act 3 air; it is "Je dis que rien ne m'épouvante". To keep what's there and make sense in French "C'est les contrabandiers le refuge ordinaire" (Guiraud recit presumably) would have to be "C'est des contrabandiers....", but I suspect it is not Meilhac and Halévy.Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Adding the numbers is a very bad idea for several reasons. (Here I add numbers): 1. There is a full musical numbers list for every opera and musical on Wikipedia, so it's just not needed and not at all difficult to find the title in the list or to search for it (control F). 2. Different editions of scores and libretti may have slightly different numberings. 3. The synopsis does not need to list *every* musical number -- only ones that affect the storyline. 4. Sometimes an opera or musical has more than one published version of the score or libretto, contemporaneously or over time, with some differences in the musical numbers, and *both* versions are used by various productions and/or continue to be published over the years. So it is silly to insist in the plot summary that a title is #3 or #4 or sometimes sung here, or that the prologue/entr'acte/postlude is numbered/unnumbered. Instead, just drop a footnote to the "musical numbers" list, noting that most or some productions use this number here, substitute this number, or often cut this number, etc., and just let the plot summary flow without such interruptions. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I withdraw the suggestion. Thank you. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. I would still like to sort the problem with the Musical Numbers number 22 (see above).Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Glad if you'll do the honours. Tim riley talk 13:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)