Talk:Melbourne Opera

reverting change relating to company status

There's been a reversion, and associated query as to whether the company should be described as 'semi-professional'. This is, at best, a contentious term in the local context, particularly given that the state funded company frequently performs with youth orchestras and unpaid soloists and choruses it would appear unwarranted to try and distinguish Melbourne Opera, which does (I understand) pay all of its creatives and cast and orchestra but not its chorus. In the absence of definitive critera against which to test the appropriateness of 'semi-professional' vs 'professional, it is best if the article (at least for now) avoids this issue of classificationLelisirdamore (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Independent reliable sources should be the arbiter of content. There are references to Melbourne Opera being semi-professional in multiple sources of this kind. Unless others can find them, these kind of sources do not describe Victorian Opera as semi-professional, perhaps with the exception of its youth productions which can be reasonably considered separately from its main productions. Boneymau (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a moot point, as I am sure Wikipedia would acknowledge, whether these 'other sources' have actually even engaging in evidence-based probing the question of classification. I think if it Wikipedia is to make a definitive call on it, it does indeed need to be *evidence based*. It would be great if an independent journalist were to examine the issue on a comparative basis but until that happens, it is best, as I suggest, to stay away from it lest we go down a political rabbit hole. I currently cannot see, on an evidence basis, how the practices of these two companies VO and MO can be distinguished from each other. VO's main-stage show, Parsifal, for instance, used the Australian Youth Orchestra, and a chorus including Melb Uni student. Or if it is to be raised in this article, it needs to be appropriately contextualised.
    • No, by making that judgement you're getting into WP:OR with discretionary picking-and-choosing. Just as we should note the semi-professional characteristics of Melbourne Opera, feel free to include on the Victorian Opera page with appropriate referencing that in some productions it has used the Australian Youth Orchestra and extended the chorus with students and young people. Boneymau (talk) 03:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • If MO would be described consistently as semi-professional, it would warrant a corresponding description here. A single remark in a review by Barney Zwartz is not enough. Are there more? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • The 'problem' comes from the two distinct uses of 'semi-professional'.

The first is the grey zone between fully amateur and fully professional -- tends to be amateur companies that bring in singers for the lead roles. This is effectively "amateur+" and the reason that the term is not widely used nor always welcomed. (Full disclosure: I like "amateurs" .. people who do things for love, in its French sense, but I want (need?) my expectations managed -- I need to know on what criteria I should be 'judging' the performance).

The second sense is a *mix* of pro and am. The Opéra de Lausanne has an amateur chorus, Graham Vick's Birmingham Opera uses the CBSO, pro leads but a chorus of local volunteers. Both of these companies would be rightly keen to avoid the label of 'pro-am' as unhelpful and misleading. See also Dorset Opera and so on.

'pro-am' can mean different things in different places and circumstances. If you can avoid using this ambiguous term by re-writing, that would help everyone. Scarabocchio (talk) 06:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• • • • • • Totally agree, which is what I have done! Lelisirdamore (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
            • But you didn't re-write to avoid the ambiguous term and describe better, you just deleted it (twice...) Boneymau (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Formatting getting wonky, but trying to answer the question from User:Michael Bednarek. In addition to the Barney Swartz (The Age, 12 Nov 2017) reference originally used, see also these using the term semi-professional (just a quick google). Should say I have no problem with the concept being described in other words if there is some objection to the term.

"Opera gets a Donald Trump makeover", Bridget Davies, The Age, 13 August 2018, <https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/opera/opera-gets-a-donald-trump-makeover-20180809-p4zwi6.html>

"Lohengrin review: Melbourne Opera successfully tackles early Wagner", Barney Zwartz, The Age, 8 August 2017, <https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/lohengrin-review-melbourne-opera-successfully-tackles-early-wagner-20170808-gxrj2y.html>

"Mary Stuart (Maria Stuarda)", Graham Ford, Stage Whispers, <https://www.stagewhispers.com.au/reviews/mary-stuart-maria-stuarda>

Boneymau (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Bridget Davies calls the staging semi-professional, whatever that means. Stage Whispers mentions semi-professional generally and in passing. Zwarts, in his Lohengrin review, mentions the semi-professionals in the chorus and orchestra. It's clear that MO is not on the same level as the Met or the ROH, but I'm sure that the singers in many opera choruses don't make a living singing, so the distinction is a bit arbitrary. I don't know how to work all that succinctly into the article or whether it's necessary, but characterizing MO as "semi-professional" doesn't seem completely wrong. If added, it could be balanced by a list of known singers and conductors. James Egglestone and Brad Daley spring to mind (although they don't have a Wikipedia page, as they should), Jacqui Dark, Helena Dix, Warwick Fyfe, Henry Choo, Rosario La Spina, … -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

That suggestion sounds sensible enough to me. Boneymau (talk) 05:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)