Talk:Utopia, Limited

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Earlier comments

There is a need for some catagories here...

There you go, I added categories while I was also adding Song and Character listings. Only 'Grand Duke' to go, now! And Thespis, if I can...D-Chan 20:59, 12th February 2006 (GMT)

I have added major sub-divisions of the Act I Finale not given individual letters in the score. Whether I have chosen the best way to display this is a different question. Adam Cuerden 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to a different, more pleasing way of displaying them. Adam Cuerden 22:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta, I was simply following the libretto. Although, I suppose it may differ from version to version...D-Chan 14:52, 14th April 2006 (GMT)

Presumably limited liability companies had been around at least since the "Joint Stock Companies Act of Sixty-Two" so they could hardly be called a recent innovation in 1893.

Good catch; now fixed. Marc Shepherd 22:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial March vs. Introduction

An earlier version claimed that:

The D'Oyly Carte Opera Company suggested in its later years the use of Sullivan's Imperial March instead of the original opening (which is more-or-less a repeat of the Drawing Room Music (No. 17) heard later). This has not been widely accepted.

The D'Oyly Carte never made any such suggestion. They included the Imperial March on their recording – not instead of, but in addition to the original opening. They did not perform it this way in the theatre. They did suggest that, for the purposes of a recording, the Imperial March is an appropriate companion piece. The Imperial March is written for a much larger orchestra than Sullivan employed in the Savoy pit. That overture could not be performed in the theatre without being re-orchestrated. Marc Shepherd 16:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Was going by their liner notes, which come out a bit more strongly in favour than it seems they were. Adam Cuerden 12:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know about any of that. Sorry, when I added the song list, I wasn't sure, so I just assumed that since both songs were on the recording, both were used! I prefer the Imperial March, myself... D-Chan 14:52, 14th April 2006 (GMT)

Gilbert's Favorite?

An earlier edit stated that Utopia was one of Gilbert's favorites. I know of no basis for this statement. Marc Shepherd 13:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a book included in the G&S Archive that says this in the Ruddigore chapter. --Ssilvers 00:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's here. Ou tis 13:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patter songs in Utopia

Hi, Ou Tis. I disagree with you about patter songs in Utopia. I think that the following songs could be considered patter songs, and that their lack of tunefulness is one of the weaknesses of Utopia:

2a. "In every mental lore" (Scaphio and Phantis); 3. "Let all your doubts take wing" (Scaphio and Phantis); 9. "It's understood, I think" (Zara, Fitz., Scaphio, and Phantis); 12c. "Henceforward with a verity" (King Paramount and Ensemble); 15. "Society has quite forsaken" (King with Chorus of Six Flowers of Progress); 19. "With fury deep we burn" (Scaphio and Phantis); 20. "If you think that when banded" (King, Scaphio and Phantis); 21. "With wily brain" (Scaphio, Phantis, and Tarara).

Let me know if you still disagree. If not, I'd like to put back the statement. If you do still disagree, can you think of a way to explain what the problem with Utopia's score is, or do you think it's adequate to say what is there? --Ssilvers 16:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the songs you list, only "Society has..." and "If you think..." have substantial sections of what I would call patter (though I suppose the difficulty lies in that the latter is not a technical term), and there they take up no more than half the song. "Henceofrard with a verity" might just be described as patter, but it is harder to describe as a song (it does not stand out from within the finale in the way that, for instance, "Come walk up and purchase with avidity" does from within that of Patience. I think the paragraph is all right as it is (except that it has just occured to me to change "is expensive" to "can be expensive", since a company, society, group or what have you is at liberty to spend as little as it can manage on a production). Ou tis 19:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that Ou Tis removed stated that Utopia "has more than its share of patter songs." Ou Tis is at least arguably correct that there are no patter songs in Utopia. Traditionally, a patter song is a "catalog" number, or very rapid-rhyme/rapid-fire delivery song. Most of those mentioned above don't even come close, and a few of them have only patter fragments in an overall non-patter number. I don't understand where "more than its share" came from. I would suggest quoting citeable sources on Utopia's score. Marc Shepherd 17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, guys, you're right. But anyone who has ever sung the second half of 9. "It's understood, I think"; and 12c. "Henceforward with a verity" (a much longer patter segment than "come walk up" from Patience, and it even has it's own designation 12(c) in the score) knows that they are patter. I also think that the definition of patter songs that Marc gives above is too narrow, but that's just my opinion. However, I think you are both clearly right that Utopia has no more patter than most G&S shows, and indeed probably less, so I withdraw my objection and apologize for wasting your time. However, Marc, if you insisted on taking out everything that had no citable source, I'd have to take out most of the qualitative descriptions in the G&S entries. --Ssilvers 04:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers, I don't insist on taking out everything that has no citable source. While cited sources are better than unsubstantiated personal opinions, it can be awfully tedious to "prove" every statement. People don't necessarily have the time to turn every edit into a full-blown research project. However, when a statement proves to be controversial, often the best resolution is to find a citable source. I also think that the stronger articles, in general, are those that cite sources, but that's something that happens over time, as editors take the time to improve each article. Marc Shepherd 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images; too many?

I found a bunch of public-domain clipart and added it to the article - I hope that's acceptable. --AlbertHerring 00:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The images are nice, but there are an awful lot of them! In most cases, I think they look better on the right side. If you're good with formatting, see if you can try to make it look a little less cluttered.... -- Ssilvers 00:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe put a few more of them part-way through the list of songs, references, and so on: It would undo the clutter of the opening section. That said, it might look better with a bit more selection. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty good the way it is - perhaps I might remove the dancing judges, or at the very least move one of them. I thought the parallel figures would be nice, but they don't really work...

Incidentally, the same source has some very good clip art which might be good to illustrate the other Savoy Operas - he doesn't have it for all of them, but I know that there's a good page for Trial by Jury, at least. It's all public domain, too, as far as I can tell. --AlbertHerring 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cut out a few - was a little too "busy" - and added a big colour print. Probably room for one more next to the introduction, if desired. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing: Is the caption to the poster OR, or does it pass as obvious? I mean, that's the only scene it could portray, unless I'm missing something terribly obvious. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the caption's fine. What I'd like to know is where the other images went? They were public domain - the site I got them from said as much. --AlbertHerring 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five of the images have disappeared and been replaced by some red lettering. Is there a technical problem with them? Adam and I did cut out the image of Scaphio and the Image of Phantis, figuring that the other 8 or 9 images were enough. -- Ssilvers 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class

Upped this to B, but it DOES need much more background and history. I have a copy of Wolfson, but as you may know, I'm doing extra University classes, so my time's limited. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very naughty of you to say, "I have a source and could do this work, but I don't have time to right now." ;-) I'm tempted to put it back to "start", but I suppose it just squeaks over the B line. Regards, -- Ssilvers 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bah. Fine. Did a bit of work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia, Limited - punctuating the name

Look at the poster advertising the opera shown in the article (Image:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg). Clearly Richard D'Oyly Carte and the authors thought that it should be advertised under this name, so this name is certainly authentic. It certainly does not have parentheses. -- Ssilvers 20:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, Original Plays, Fourth Series, gives the punctuation as Utopia, Limited; or, The Flowers of Progress - actually, this is the standard pattern used on all the subtitled works - should we fix them all to this convention? Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think we should be trying to create a convention. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and if it is broke, I suggest that you bring it up at the project talk page, rather than here. I think the names are OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the opera opened as Utopia (Limited). When the parentheses were dropped, the Chappell libretto title was revised to Utopia Limited (without a comma). As Adam notes, Original Plays puts a comma between "Utopia" and "Limited". Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should use the Original plays format (Title; or, Subtitle) pattern in giving titles? I, for one, like it, but it is rather old-fashioned punctuation. If we did it, we'd have to apply it to all thirteen operas. (I don't think that Sorcerer, properly speaking, has a subtitle, though it's sometimes given one) Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the punctuation in Chatto & Windus was simply a house style, and there is no reason to revise all of the articles to match it. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a G&S aficionado I was most suprised to see a comma in the title. Surely the comma alters the meaning; without the comma it resembles a company name like Widgets Limited, with the comma it implies that Utopia as a concept has its limitations. Which meaning did Gilbert intend? Other than reflecting on his self proclaimed precision in language we may never really know. Spyglasses (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You know, I think we might have overdone it. Oh, well. We hopefully will expand this, and though there's a couple images in Final Curtain that we MUST include, it'll probably work out more balanced in the end. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could safely get rid of the drawing that says "Zara dances with Fitz" (or something like that). Also, the new image could be stacked right under your storybox.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American productions and copyright

Can someone explain why American professional productions of Utopia would have been more likely after the expiration of Gilbert's copyright in 1961? I thought G&S had always been in the public domain in the U.S. Tparkes (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As now worded, the statement is awkward and misleading. Although Light Opera of Manhattan did produce Utopia, it had nothing to do with the expiration of copyright. LOOM didn't even come into existence until 1968. The statement also says that "some professional companies began to produce it." The word "some" implies more than just one or two—and if this is the case, I'm not aware of who they are (or were). Marc Shepherd (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I fixed it. Feel free to edit or comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NYGASP effort was a single concert or quasi-staged performance, right? I'm pretty sure they didn't do a multi-performance run of a fully staged production. Marc Shepherd (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was staged and costumed for principals but, IRC, the chorus was in evening dress on book. I'm sure that's how they did GD, but I am not 100% sure that Utopia wasn't fully staged. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty close to 100% sure of that. Marc Shepherd (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Several subplots???" and isn't it about globalisation?

What are these subplots exactly? I honestly can't say I've ever noticed any particular loose ends. I'd like to delete this, unless someone can explain to me exactly where they are. And what scenes remained unset? Any ideas what they were? Again - I think this should either be explained or deleted - at the very least properly cited. It may well be that if Gilbert and Sullivan had been on better terms at the time they may have done a bit more editing, but I do think that the work's untidiness is honestly not much worse than the other "Savoy Operas".

Utopia is basically about the phenomenon usually known today as "globalisation", or at least its cultural aspects. Together with the subject of scandal in the British Royal Family (Gilbert was obviously taking a swing at the then Prince of Wales, later Edward VII) this makes it singularly UNdated. I hestitate to add this very obvious detail without asking what others feel about it, as the Savoy Opera articles in Wiki seem to be unusually closely (even jealously) guarded.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 14:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The loose ends include, among others, the wise men's first act love for Zara which involves a duet, a dialogue and a quartet and then is simply dropped in the second act! And what about all the romances? Dramaleigh and Goldbury have chatted up the king's two underage daughters - are they going to marry them? Will Zara even marry Fitz? The second act is a disorganized mess. By all means, add any notable information to the article (or any article on Wikipedia), as long as you reference all of the new facts, arguments and conclusions to WP:reliable sources. We are systematically improving the referencing on these articles and have now done Thespis (opera) and Trial by Jury. We are currently working on H.M.S. Pinafore. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it boils down to personal opinion - but in fact the "wise men" pass Zara over to Fitzbattleaxe for "safekeeping" until one of them should happen to die, which is a logical enough resolution of the business of Zara's future, at least by Gilbertian standards - especially in view of their ending the work at Paramount's mercy. The younger daughters are only fifteen - a bit too young, even by Victorian standards, for "resolved" love matches. Very simply, especially as the love interest is so secondary to the political satire, the plot, while untidy, and in obvious need of trimming, is not a lot less coherent than the typical G&S effort.

What kind of reference would suffice to support an observation that the primary subject of Utopia is actually globalisation (even the satire on the nature of a "limited" company tends that way)? A dictionary definition of "globalisation" perhaps? It seems hard to expect a more specific citation, especially when we have a mention of "imperialism" (without any direct mention of Utopia becoming a colony or protectorate to justify this) that is quite uncited. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I still want to know what scenes Sullivan refused to set, and how they would have led to a more satisfactory resolution of the plot!! Regardless of citation, this needs reference to the plot itself.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert wrote two different versions of a scene in Act II that would have resolved the Zara–Scaphio–Phantis subplot. They are reproduced in Wolfson, pp. 195–201. It would have come right after the "capital plot" trio. Gilbert's first draft begins like this:

Scaphio. That being settled, there is only one thing left to consider. Six months ago we entrusted Zara to Capt. Fitzbattleaxe as stakeholder until we shall have decided which of us is to survive the other. That delicate question is still unsettled.

After Fitz. and Zara enter, there's a quartet in which Fitzbattleaxe tells them Zara's many faults (which he makes up), and the two wise men decide she's not such a great catch after all. After they exit, she has an aria, "Youth is a gift of worth," which (with some wording changes) was later transferred to the first act, then cut entirely after the first night.

Wolfson writes (p. 32):

Sullivan was also unhappy about a sequence in the Second Act (a quartet and a solo, pp. 195 et seq.) which Gilbert had recently designed for the benefit of Miss McIntosh. Both numbers, Sullivan felt, impeded the development of the Act.

I'll leave it to you to incorporate any of that in the article, if you find it relevant.

What kind of reference would suffice to support an observation that the primary subject of Utopia is actually globalisation. A dictionary definition of "globalisation" perhaps? It's quite simple, actually. All you need is a reliable source that has said so. Plenty of people have written analytical books and articles about Gilbert & Sullivan. If you can find one that says that Utopia is about globalisation, then the article can say so. Otherwise, it can't. A dictionary definition does not suffice; you need a source that makes the connection between Utopia and globalisation. If it is that important, then probably someone quotable has said so. If no one has, then perhaps it isn't as clear-cut as you are suggesting. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert didn't call it globalisation because the word hadn't been invented. In fact the term is most unlikely to appear in a discussion of Utopia for precisely the same reason. The thing itself (as opposed to its name) was very much in evidence in the 19th century - and is very evident (to anyone who listens to a recording of Utopia, or reads the libretto) the princial theme of that work. "Cultural imperialism" and "economic imperialism" have both been used as near synonyms for something we would nowadays call "globalisation" so perhaps we should just leave the (uncited) reference to imperialism? I am certainly not going to bother to change it, although I am tempted to leave a ^{[citation needed]} tag.

Gilbert and Sullivan are indeed a popular subject - but information about Utopia is very thin on the ground. This article, in fact, is already possibly one of the most informative sources you are likely to find - a great many mentions of Utopia, even in otherwise useful G&S sources, are very sketchy and derivative of each other. Even the best ones seem to avoid a real discussion of the major themes - or "limit" this to the swipe at limited liability.

Thanks for the info about deleted scenes and songs by the way (love to see this in the article in fact!) - this might indicate that the idea I have always had, that the work (and the Duke of course) were marred by the lack of interaction between its estranged collaborative creators, might be exaggerated. They were evidently still communicating, even if it was at the tops of their voices! But as I said - the idea that Sullivan caused problems by refusing to set things that would have tied up "loose ends" is barely supported. You may have a "reliable source" stating that there are loose ends - I repeat - where are they in the libretto?? The "Zara's marriage" one is pretty flimsy - Fitzbattleaxe is safe enough - his rivals are not serious enough about Zara to fight a duel over her, seem to prefer the princess marrying FitzB to losing her to their immediate rival, and are in any case comprehensively "out of power". In fact one suspects that Paramount will have them executed fairly shortly - or is that another "loose end"? Need one point out the usual messy, logically unsatisfactory (and often deliciously funny) "resolutions" of most of Gilbert's work??? Apart from Yeomen, perhaps, are ANY of them "resolved" sensibly and without unanswered questions?

I'll let you have the last word on this - if you want one. My interest in this article is just not up to the endless head bashing necessary to get any constructive changes through!! Based on the pother over "Yeomen" especially. I think I'll just take this off my watchlist.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008 changes

OK - I've done it! please don't knee-jerk revert!! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't sight-revert. I kept the changes that had citations (or were improvements of clarity), but I removed those that appeared to be unsupported personal opinion. Marc Shepherd (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the Bradley refs out of the intro per WP:LEAD and into the Background section. I also did some research in Bradley, Ainger and Allen and added refs and info to the Background section. Stedman would be helpful, too, but I won't get to that for a while. Allen also has more useful information, and I'm sure more can be gleaned from Wolfson, but I do not have Wolfson. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protesting too much

The article thrice makes the claim that Utopia, Limited was "profitable" or "turned a profit," without putting it into context. The sense I get, is that someone was a bit over-eager to make Utopia seem more successful than it really was. None of the other G&S articles protest so much about profits, even though the 1880s operas were, for the most part, considerably more successful.

The correct statement, I believe, is Ainger, p. 352–3: "The final accounts revealed that Gilbert had made £4,600 for his 11 percent of gross receipts, whereas Carte and Sullivan, sharing the net profits between them, had each received only £1,800. Compared with previous operas, Utopia had not been a financial success. . . ."

Although the article as now written is literally true — after all, any amount above zero is technically a profit — one gets a very different impression when the full context is given. In contrast, Gilbert said his profit on Ruddigore, arguably the least successful of the 1880s operas, was £7,000 (Stedman, p. 244). As the partners were then on equal terms, one can infer the total was £21,000. That puts the £8,200 for Utopia (£4,600 + 2×£1,800) in its proper place.

The article also says that Utopia "was able to compete effectively with this new genre" (i.e., musical comedies), without mentioning that among 1893 premieres, both Morocco Bound (295 perfs.; Gänzl, p. 486) and A Gaiety Girl (413 perfs.; Gänzl, p. 491) outran it, the latter significantly; to say nothing of The Shop Girl the following year (546 perfs; Gänzl, p. 533).

Because it lacks concrete details on these matters, the article gives a slightly rosier impression than is warranted. Marc Shepherd (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've modified or eliminated the references to profit and deleted the reference to competing effectively, which didn't seem to add much. Let us know if you have further comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you covered it. I made one small change. Marc Shepherd (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Utopia Limited Poster.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 17:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Utopia, Limited, is a Savoy Opera, with music by Arthur Sullivan and libretto by W. S. Gilbert. It was the second-to-last of Gilbert and Sullivan's fourteen collaborations, premiering on 7 October 1893 for a run of 245 performances. Although it did not achieve the success of most of their earlier productions, it was the longest-running production to premiere at the Savoy Theatre in the 1890s. The opera satirises incorporation laws, by imagining the absurd convergence of natural persons with legal commercial entities, the perceived unfairness of bankruptcy laws, and other conceits and institutions of the late 19th-century British Empire.Image: Strobridge Lithographing Co.; Restoration: Adam Cuerden

Archive – More featured pictures...

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Utopia, Limited. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Lifegard.gif on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]