Littleolive oil (talk | contribs) →False claim of consensus: reply |
Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) →False claim of consensus: disgusting accussations... really the way how to handle this. |
||
Line 270: | Line 270: | ||
:::::?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
:::::?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::::{{u|Francis Schonken}}. Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.[[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
::::::{{u|Francis Schonken}}. Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.[[User:Littleolive oil|Littleolive oil]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::::::????????? ... and now a series of [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] ... Please, try to get a grasp of how Wikipedia works. I don't control this page, have no ambition in that direction, and am disgusted at the idea. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 20:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:40, 19 December 2020
Vespro della Beata Vergine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 1, 2020. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Redirect?
Shouldn't there be a redirect to this page from "1610 Vespers" or something comparable? --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, there should be. There also probably doesn't need to be the "Monteverdi" at the end of the name, unless someone else wrote a Vespro della Beata Vergine in 1610. Mak (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Question
This seems to want a citation:
- In scale, Monteverdi's Vespers was the most ambitious work of religious music before Bach. This 90-minute piece includes soloists, chorus, and orchestra and is comprised of both liturgical and extra-liturgical elements.
It is a very ambitious work, but I've heard other ambitious works as well from a little later. I'm thinking of Missa Salizburgensis in particular. Maybe some qualification is in order?
--♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
List of recordings: overkill?
This article contains an unusually long and thorough list of recordings. As tastes and technology change, and CD's go in and out of availability, this will rapidly become outdated. I would suggest eliminating this, or maybe replacing it with a brief section listing one or two prominent recordings and quotations from critical reviews. Grommel (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I've added the 1974 John Eliot Gardiner recording mainly for historical interest. It may the first recording. It may mark the introduction of the work into the performing repertoire. Perhaps we should remove the lists of soloists for brevity. Verbcatcher (talk) 03:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Map of performances in 2010
I put the map back, because it is remarkable that the MV were performed so many times in 2010, 400 years after publication (anniversary year). For example, in 2009, I found only 8 performances with online references. If I recall correctly, online searches found over 175 performances in 2010. This bit of excitement is nice to document, and the online map is an interesting way to show it. Perhaps the email address associated with the map could be edited away now, if folks find it problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.152.32 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Performance history
When was the first modern performance? Could someone write a section on performance history?
The sleeve notes with the John Eliot Gardiner 1975 recording say "On 5th March 1964 a performance took place in the famous chapel of King's College Cambridge [conducted by JEG][...] the first occasion that the 'Vespers' had been performed in their entirety since the death of Walter Goehr". Goehr died in 1960.
I think the Vespers became increasingly popular from the mid seventies. I know of three performances by different groups in 1973/4 (I sang in one). The increasing popularity was probably driven by the availability of a modern performing edition. Did JEG edit an edition? Verbcatcher (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for inadvertently deleting this page on 7 Dec 2013 at 10.31 GMT and thanks to Melbourne Star for pointing this out.
I will try again, using the preface to the Stevens edition of 1960 andwhat I can find of Kurtzman and Wellham.
Denis Stevens argued in a performing edition of the score for Novello in 1960, which he recorded for Vanguard in 1967, that the sacred concertos or motets (the presence of which in Monteverdi's publication is now seen to have been an innovation) were not envisaged for performance with Monteverdi's main setting, though, except in one case where the composer extends the usual liturgical text, they are liturgically correct and belong to the Vespers service. He argues that their keys are inappropriate in the musical context of the time. (Stevens seems later to have changed his mind about the sacred concertos and included them in a revised edition of 1994) Walter Goehr had performed most of the publication (I remember hearing what memory said were his LPs in 1956, but Kurtzman does not list them, and I can't find any other listing, so I suppose what I heard may well have been the Grischkat recording, though I certainly later heard a Goehr broadcast) For many of my generation these were the first revelation of the Vespers. If you accept Stevens's original view, it follows that what we now hear as Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610, since Goehr's practice, modified by, for example, Leo Schrade, has clearly won out in modern performance, is essentially a slowly-evolved mid twentieth-century construct, and a performance of the music in a publication - not an integrated liturgical or non liturgical score (as, for example "Orfeo" is) at all. It might be worth mentioning this point, since- among other things- it does cast some light on what is accepted these days as "scholarly" performance practice. DelahaysDelahays (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
It might also be worth remembering that Goehr's performances used, in what may have been his own orchestrations, the text of the edition prepared by Hans F Redlich in 1934, (and based on the 1932 publication of the music in the collected Monteverdi edition by Gian Francesco Malipiero, which Redlich seems to have thought needed making performable in modern conditions, by, among other things, omitting two psalms and reordering the other pieces) published in 1949 and in the interim performed in Germany and Switzerland including a performance on Swiss Radio under Scherchen, and thus after the first UK performance arranged, at Goehr's suggestion, through Morley College (where Michael Tippett was then a major figure - Goehr recorded his Concerto for Double String Orchestra) in 1946, followed by a BBC Third Programme broadcast in 1947. Another edition, by Leo Schrade, then in the USA, who bitterly attacked the 1953 Vox recording under Hans Grischkat and Redlich's edition, both of which he regarded as "romantic", and over-broad in tempo, was later, by 1956, recorded under Anthony Lewis for Oiseau-Lyre, in a version which is now accepted as the first complete recording - I'm afraid I don't have a more accurate date, and I don't know Schrade's edition. From the currently available mp3 snippets on iTunes it sounds - on modern instruments - pretty weighty, but was then regarded a much lighter and faster than anything before. He seems, as the recording confirms, however, to have regarded the vespers as a single integrated musical conception to be performed in Monteverdi's published order. Delahays94.192.64.37 (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Vespro della Beata Vergine. 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:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131224111803/http://www.21cmediagroup.com/mediacenter/newsitem.php?i=489 to http://www.21cmediagroup.com/mediacenter/newsitem.php?i=489
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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) 22:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 10:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking this up. The piece is unique in music history, and scholars argue about it. The article history is complex, begun by an IP, and this is the version I found, - let's call it Found. - I am grateful to Brianboulton who had prepared sourcing details in one of his sandboxes for an expansion, and granted me to use it. I expanded, based on some of this, and other sources, and won Thoughtfortheday to write a summary of the recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Comments
- "the most ambitious work of religious music before Bach," this isn't referenced and doesn't appear to be mentioned or expanded upon in the main body of the article.
- This was in Found. Let's wait a bit and then see if we can support it or have to reword it. It's true, and even an understatement. "ambitious" is certainly supported, in history by him intending that to apply for a better position, in sheer size by not only setting the required vesper parts but addig, and in quality by writing a combination of many styles. --GA
- I dropped the "most" and the reference to Bach, for now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have "Marian feasts" twice in the lead, the linking is a little odd for me, perhaps you could rephrase one of them.
- Well, I thought that for some readers we need to introduce Mary, but also say that we have an article on the feasts. I try rephasing, help welcome. --GA
- Psalm is overlinked in the lead.
- Fixed Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, [Masumrezarock100|, for this and other "done"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "first commercial recording of the Vespers was issued in 1953" isn't it normally "released"?
- Done Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Probably worth covering somewhere that it is in Latin (as noted in the infobox but not elsewhere).
- Tried. If we introduce May, we probably should also recall that all Catholic services were in Latin then, and for a long time to follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "published the vespers in 1610 in Venice, with a dedication to Pope Paul V, dated 1 September." tiny bit confused, I assumed the dedication didn't appear in the original publication because that happened in July 1610 (according to the infobox).
- I removed the month from the infobox, - that's when it was announced to begin (in a letter). We don't know when it ended. Yes the dedication was a separate thing, - it was all just parts, remember, no score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "The work shows off his " -> "The work demonstrates his..."
- Done Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why isn't "Ave maris stella" italicised like the article to which it is linked?
- I fixed the linked article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "for 6 voices" -> "for six voices"
- Done Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Monteverdi dedicated the work to Pope Paul V, dated 1 September 1610. The printing must have been done with some haste, given this tight schedule" still confused. I guess perhaps there's a difference here between when it was "published" and when it was "printed"? To me they are synonymous.
- see above, about beginning in July, and that the only date we really know, afaik --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Note the absence of bar lines." noted, but as this is not discussed at all in the article, what is the relevance?
- removed, from Found --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "plainchant antiphons" WP:SEAOFBLUE.
- will have to think, another thing from Found, - if traditional you don't have to specify anyway ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I reworded the whole para (from Found), please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "13 sections.[20][16] " numerical order please.
- Fixed Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- And since you have "twelve" a couple of sentences later, perhaps go for "thirteen" here.
- I normally go to twelve, not the combined ones ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why not use those external links for Bible references in the table?
- Not sure I understand the question. A link to our article on a psalm, say Psalm 110 is much richer than the sourcetext, + the King James Version often deviates from a translation of the Latin. The psalm article includes that text completely, anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "The LORD said unto my Lord" no need for the SHOUTING.
- Fixed Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please revert back. That's not shouting, but two different ways of Hebrew to say "LORD" and "Lord", and is like that in wikisource. It has been explained to me (forgot where, in 2019), and helps those who know the difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Self-reverted Thanks. I didn't know that. Masum Reza📞 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- An user reverted my edits. Masum Reza📞 22:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted back. Perhaps put "per GAN" in an edit summary, hinting at this discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Technically small caps are more correct. </kibutz Sparafucil (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
- I reverted back. Perhaps put "per GAN" in an edit summary, hinting at this discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- An user reverted my edits. Masum Reza📞 22:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Self-reverted Thanks. I didn't know that. Masum Reza📞 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please revert back. That's not shouting, but two different ways of Hebrew to say "LORD" and "Lord", and is like that in wikisource. It has been explained to me (forgot where, in 2019), and helps those who know the difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Position of the motets" this section is unreferenced.
- The section from Found is gone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "The first commercial recording of the Vespers..." this paragraph is unreferenced.
- We now get to Thoughtfortheday territory. I added the page for the first recording, and the pages for the complete discography. --GA
- "As mentioned elsewhere in this article" we don't write articles like this. Just state it. If you're repeating yourself, don't. If it's just expanding from the lead, fine.
- seems fixed --GA
- See also section normally before Refs.
- Fixed Masum Reza📞 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "also known as the Vespers of 1640." fragment, no full stop required.
- shortened anyway --GA
That's it for a first run, I'll put it on hold. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's it for first replies. Will tell Thoughtfortheday that this is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- "He also included a Marian hymn, "Ave maris stella",..." sentence is unreferenced.
- Similarly "The Ave maris stella.." (also, this term is later italicised, in an image caption, so be consistent).
- "Movements of Ave maris stella" table is incomplete, needs remaining cells to be created even if not filled in, or spanned across.
- Refs with page ranges shoul be pp. (e.g. refs 5, 7, 14 [needs en-dash], 23, 28)
The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- fixed, I hope (cursing the automatic italics of the lang template ...) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ok Gerda et al, good work, happy to promote this now. Have a good weekend. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Clarifications needed
A few things need clarification or explanation:
- Monteverdi travelled to Rome hoping to submit the publication during an audience.
This probably means a papal audience, if so we should say so. Other dignitaries might hold audiences. This is sourced to a book that I don't have.
- Falsobordone is an obscure term that we should clarify, a wikilink is insufficient. Would 'falsobordone (recitation)' be accurate and sufficient, or possibly 'falsobordone (a style of recitation)'?
- Monody should also be clarified, particularly as it may be confused with monophony. Perhaps 'monody (a solo melodic line with instrumental accompaniment)'.
Verbcatcher (talk) 08:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, - I am not sure. If we link to symphony, we don't also add an explanation, which would be boring for those who already know, and the others really get it with the first line for falsobordone, and the second for monody. Will think about it, though. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- I now looked up papal audience, which is only a redirect to audience (meeting), and the papal section is named Holy See, which some readers may not even be aware means that, and the section begins with dress code. I am not sure a link will help, but will add "papal" to the article, even if I think what else in the sentence the Pope is mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- The general reader with an interest in classical music can be expected to be familiar with 'symphony', but not with these terms. I am seeking to apply this guideline from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking:
- Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.
- Verbcatcher (talk) 10:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- The general reader with an interest in classical music can be expected to be familiar with 'symphony', but not with these terms. I am seeking to apply this guideline from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking:
- I'm perhaps blind for the difference between symphony and monody in terms of being known or not, - could you please add these explanations as you see fit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Importance
A work of this historical significance should not be classified as of "low importance". I've reclassified it as "high". Any reasoned objections? Brianboulton (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: this is a work of great significance on the history of European music, but of minor importance in the history of Italy and of Christianity. The ratings should indicate the importance of our topic in relation to each Wikiproject. My assessments are:
- WikiProject Italy: low or mid, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Italy/Assessment#Importance scale. Possibly not sufficiently relevant to Italy to be in this Wikiproject. Not a work that a student of Italian culture would necessarily be familiar with.
- WikiProject Christian Music: high or mid, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments#Importance scale. However, it may not be a good fit to this Wikiproject, which seems to be focused on modern music.
- WikiProject Christianity: mid or low, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment#Importance scale. Does not appear to be of high importance in the history of Christian theology or worship.
- Verbcatcher (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding your last point: the composition was a game-changer for Christian worship. Before it, prima pratica was the dominant paradigm for church music: no other composition was thus emblematic in paving the way for seconda pratica to become its replacement. In simpler words, no other composition thus strongly marks the pivotal point where (lively) baroque music became acceptable for Christian worship, pushing the era where (comparatively rather static and abstract) polyphony had its heyday for that purpose to an end. That being said, I could not find "high importance in the history of Christian theology or worship" as a criterion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment#Importance scale. Its "Mid" description seems to fit best imho ("...a topic that is important to at least one field within the broad field of Christianity..."), the "... field ..." being Christian music. The topic of the transition from polyphony to baroque being marked by the composition may however be a bit more elaborated in the Wikipedia article: that would certainly be a point to be considered if this were ever to go from GA to FA. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding the first point (WikiProject Italy): "High" (Topics that are very notable within Italy, and not unheard of outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia) seems to fit best imho. This would put the importance label for this WikiProject at the same level as, say, the Villa Rotunda. May be a student of Italian culture never heard about 16th century rural architecture in the Veneto, maybe they never heard about 17th century Venetian church music, but if they do there is hardly a better example of the former than the Rotunda, or than Monteverdi's Vespro in the latter case. Thus I'd rate the Vespro at the same level as the Rotunda for this WikiProject, which is "high". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: for comment. Brianboulton (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, but I really don't care much about these classes, and don't know who does. It's one of the most important compositions, ever, but what does it mean for Italy? - I'm in the middle of a little article about a Britten composition, which I feel I have to write for his birthday, after the one planned for that day is on the Main page already today, - that's more important for me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Gaps
Two intertwined issues of instrumentation and chiavette haven't been covered yet: a reader may be left wondering at the labels "Cornetto", "Fifaro" "Trombone" & "Flauto" in the partbook image, and transposition of the high-clef movements bears quite a bit on the overall structure and its climaxes. I've added a few things under "Further reading". Sparafucil (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Suggested copy edits
@Gerda Arendt: Hi, thanks for inviting me to cast an eye over this article. It is well-written and I enjoyed reading it - and I learnt from it! As we discussed, I've made suggested copy edits that made sense to me as I read through the article, but please do re-revise as you see fit. I'd be happy to discuss reasons for the suggested changes as well. Here are some further copy edit type suggestions to consider:
- Thank you so much for the effort. The article is the work of many editors, and some things grew in a long history, which explains a lot of the inconsistencies still found. I'll go over the points now and fix some right now, leaving others for later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Throughout article: the lang template is used in some places but could be used more consistently as appropriate.
- Lead section:
- "SV206" Comma afterwards or in brackets?
- Links for "court", "Gregorian plainchant" (or just "plainchant"), "Versicle".
- I dropped "court", linked plainchant, and dropped versicle (mentioned linked in the body).
- "The work received renewed attention from musicologists and performers in the 20th century, who have grappled with whether it is a planned composition in a modern sense as opposed to an anthology, with the liturgical role of the concerti and sonata, and with instrumentation, chiavette, and other issues of performance practice." Simplify/clarify, possibly split sentence?
- I'll go over the lead again, last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Can we find a way not to oversimplify? Key (music) is not what is being debated, but a particular practice of transposition (music) more precisely called chiavette. Concerti & sonata have been mentioned in the previous paragraph, and whether they are indeed 'additions' is the point of the debate, centered around the presumed liturgical requirements. IMO "anthology" (like the 1641 selve, lit. a "grove") better captures the sense of an 'unplanned' collection. Sparafucil (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll go over the lead again, last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Monteverdi in Mantua:
- "During this time,[when?] the opera genre developed" – various years are mentioned prior to this sentence.
- modified --GA
- "The first work now [when?] considered as an opera is" – suggest revising to avoid ambiguous time references to information that may not always continue to be true.
- I need help. We can't just drop "now" because the genre "opera" was used only later. --GA
- Link "court".
- After talking about the dukes, it seems a bit redundant, no? --GA
- "first opera is L'Orfeo" Review tense? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "During this time,[when?] the opera genre developed" – various years are mentioned prior to this sentence.
- Vespers:
- "The liturgical vespers is an evening prayer service according to the Catholic Officium Divinum (Divine Office) of Monteverdi's time, and is in Latin, as were all services of the Catholic Church at the time." Review tenses (past tense throughout seems more appropriate to me).
- I will have to find a way to express that vespers still is a Catholic evening prayer, vs. the specialties at Monteverdi's time. --GA
- "Monteverdi deviated from the typical vespers liturgy by adding motets (concerti), alternating with the psalms." Consider "between".
- taken if you think that's better --GA
- "Graham Dixon suggests that Monteverdi's setting is more suited for use for the feast of Saint Barbara, claiming, for example, that the texts taken from Song of Songs are applicable to any female saint but that a dedication to fit a Marian feast made the work more "marketable".[20][21]" If "marketable" is a direct quote from one of the sources, check it is [20], if not then place [21] next to it even though out of numerical order. If it is not a direct quote, consider another expression that does not require quotes. Also, neither source is by Dixon himself, so is his work being quoted/cited by these sources? If so, give the reference quoted by [20] or [21] using a "cited in" format.
- That whole paragraph was there before me, and I was uneasy about changes, but will think it over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "The liturgical vespers is an evening prayer service according to the Catholic Officium Divinum (Divine Office) of Monteverdi's time, and is in Latin, as were all services of the Catholic Church at the time." Review tenses (past tense throughout seems more appropriate to me).
- First publication:
- "for the more complicated numbers" Is "numbers" a technical term or colloquialism?
- no idea, was there before, changed to "movements" --GA
- "resulted in some of the numbers being printed" Ditto?
- same --GA
- "delivered a copy to the pope as the music is [when?] in the papal library." Avoid statements that may not always be continue to be true.
- What can we do? It is there, and I see no reason why the library would let go of such a treaure. - I added the next page to the ref. It says in a footnote that the copy may have been printed early, and gotten to the library early, with explanations, but all this seems a bit too complex to mention in the article. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Options might be: end sentence with "delivered a copy to the pope" and let the interested reader follow up the citation (good that it's available online), or move last part of sentence to a footnote and explain along the lines of "In [year], [authority] noted there was an early copy in the papal library" but, as you say, this may be too much detail for a minor point. ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- What can we do? It is there, and I see no reason why the library would let go of such a treaure. - I added the next page to the ref. It says in a footnote that the copy may have been printed early, and gotten to the library early, with explanations, but all this seems a bit too complex to mention in the article. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda and I are going back and forth on "There is no indication that any of his publications of sacred music received a second edition. "sfn|Kurtzman|2012"." One might interpret this as Gerda suggests: a lack of popularity. But Kurtzman doesn't make that particular point, as far as I can see, and he states that there were multiple printings correcting errata, begging a definition of 'edition' in a 17c music publishing context. Sparafucil (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- "for the more complicated numbers" Is "numbers" a technical term or colloquialism?
- Performance:
- "in Rome, where he was not offered a post" Clarify, it currently seems as if we should already know he might have been.
- "Mantua" said "Probably aspiring to a better position, ..." - Expansion should probably be there if necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "a choir large and skillful enough to cover up to ten vocal parts, split into separate choirs, and seven soloists." I think the intended meaning is conveyed without the final comma, unless it is the choir covering "ten vocal parts ... and seven soloists" (which doesn't quite seem right to me).
- The choir is one thing, - the seven soloists are a different thing, - you are probably better able to fix that. In the last performance I heard last year (Collegium Vocale Gent), one choir was formed by soloists only (Dunedin Consort), and in another performance I heard last year, there were 10 singers, period, - OVPP. Perhaps we simply drop the soloists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that clarification. Does "The Vespers is monumental in scale and requires a choir large and skillful enough to cover up to ten vocal parts (splitting into separate choirs for each) and seven soloists." give the intended meaning? ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, not the same, so it probably needs rewording. The 10 voices are the maximum number of different voices at a time, two choirs of four each, and two singing different cantus firmus. In your suggestion, I'd have no idea what "each" refers to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for that clarification. Does "The Vespers is monumental in scale and requires a choir large and skillful enough to cover up to ten vocal parts (splitting into separate choirs for each) and seven soloists." give the intended meaning? ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- The choir is one thing, - the seven soloists are a different thing, - you are probably better able to fix that. In the last performance I heard last year (Collegium Vocale Gent), one choir was formed by soloists only (Dunedin Consort), and in another performance I heard last year, there were 10 singers, period, - OVPP. Perhaps we simply drop the soloists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Some scholars have argued that the Vespers was not intended as a single work but rather as a collection to choose from." Who?
- I would have to go over the sources again, but we do have his second substantial publications, Selva morale e spirituale, which certainly IS a collection. --GA
- I'll add that unlikelihood of using both of the two Magnificats makes the 1610 book as a whole unambiguously a 'collection'. There are numerous positions, of which a single work in only two versions is one. Sparafucil (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Sparafucil. Just checking: Is there a source to support this addition so it does not appear as editorial comment? ~ RLO1729💬 01:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll add that unlikelihood of using both of the two Magnificats makes the 1610 book as a whole unambiguously a 'collection'. There are numerous positions, of which a single work in only two versions is one. Sparafucil (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would have to go over the sources again, but we do have his second substantial publications, Selva morale e spirituale, which certainly IS a collection. --GA
- "Recent performances have" When?
- compare all recordings, - none of them would say they perform the Vespers, and then supply only parts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Imprecise words like "some" and "recent" are covered in MOS:WORDS so best to be more specific, such as "Scholars including [authority] and [authority] ...". Also, "Recent performances have ..." seems to imply that earlier ones may not have, so I'd suggest rephrasing if this is not the case. ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- compare all recordings, - none of them would say they perform the Vespers, and then supply only parts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "in Rome, where he was not offered a post" Clarify, it currently seems as if we should already know he might have been.
- Music:
- "Make haste, o God, to deliver me" Lower case "o" is used here and in "Sections". Should this be upper case (as elsewhere in article) or is this the usual way of naming these pieces?
- I made it lc for all now. Tough for me, no "o" at all in the Latin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Upper case seems more natural to me, but not a problem. ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Lower case "o" is normal in German but very odd to anglophones. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am sorry I am late to this discussion. The OED indicates that 'O' is normal, and gives several historical examples, including the 1611 King James Bible: 'Praise the Lord, O Ierusalem: praise thy God, O Zion.' We currently have 'o' in Music§Structure but 'O' in Music§Sections. I favour using 'O'.
- "O". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) Verbcatcher (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Lower case "o" is normal in German but very odd to anglophones. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Upper case seems more natural to me, but not a problem. ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- I made it lc for all now. Tough for me, no "o" at all in the Latin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "Make haste, o God, to deliver me" Lower case "o" is used here and in "Sections". Should this be upper case (as elsewhere in article) or is this the usual way of naming these pieces?
- Sections:
- "who are often in thirds" Link "thirds"?
- to what, please? --GA
- The disambiguation page has some options but I wasn't sure which you'd prefer; possibly link to somewhere in Interval (music) or Harmony? ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Major third would also work quite well I think (it mentions other types as well). ~ RLO1729💬 01:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
- Statistically one would only expect 3 out of 7 thirds to be major. Contrapuntal motion and Voicing_(music)#Doubling are more to the point, but the myriad of unlinked hits in a WP search for "parallel thirds" suggests no one has seen a need for that article yet. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- to what, please? --GA
- "first in even, then in triple metre" Link "metre" or "triple metre" etc?
- triple metre linked --GA
- "setting has been regarded as conservative" By whom?
- another sentence that was there before me, - sticking to the plainchant as cantus firmus simply WAS old-fashioned at the time. --GA
- "Monteverdi uses the initium" Link/explain "initium"
- While that could probably be replaced by "beginning", the tougher question is of Magnificat tone could be linked to Tonus peregrinus. I'm not sure, - later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- The most common English term is "intonation" as explained at Reciting_tone#Regular_psalm_tones. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- While that could probably be replaced by "beginning", the tougher question is of Magnificat tone could be linked to Tonus peregrinus. I'm not sure, - later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "who are often in thirds" Link "thirds"?
- Analysis:
- "first three psalms" Caps for "psalms"? Review whether capitals are used appropriately in each case for "psalms", "vespers", ..., throughout article.
- Psalm 113, when a specific one, but psalms when generic, like Symphony No. 9, but nine symphonies. Vespers is the only exception, because short for Vespro della Beata Vergine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's also a convention of distinguishing music genres from liturgical services: music for the Mass is a mass, and I suppose "vespers" might be music for Vespers. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Psalm 113, when a specific one, but psalms when generic, like Symphony No. 9, but nine symphonies. Vespers is the only exception, because short for Vespro della Beata Vergine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- "first three psalms" Caps for "psalms"? Review whether capitals are used appropriately in each case for "psalms", "vespers", ..., throughout article.
- Recordings:
- "There is an argument that Monteverdi was offering a compendium of music for vespers" Argument made by whom? Is this statement covered by the citation?
- same as above, - unified piece or collection? --GA
- "For example, normally only one of the two published versions" "Normally" – avoid ambiguous generalisations.
- Normally I'd avoid "normally" (+ this section was written by Thoughtfortheday), but I truly don't know a single exception - the two differ only by instrumentation, and conductors decide for one or the other. Playing both would be liturgically wrong. --GA
- "There is an argument that Monteverdi was offering a compendium of music for vespers" Argument made by whom? Is this statement covered by the citation?
- Notes:: "It is generally assumed" By whom? Needs citation.
- Still same topic, one would do one or the other, - but the word removed. --GA
- I understand that if one person says something, it needs a citation, but if a majority agrees one can say "generally", - again ask
- I think the problem is more that when an editor makes an assessment of whether or not the majority agree, they are reviewing a body of evidence which readers cannot check to see if the editor is correct. This could be considered a subtle form of original research by the editor. Instead, we should be looking to quote secondary sources who have previously made this assessment of the available evidence. ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I hope these suggestions are of some help. Cheers, :) ~ RLO1729💬 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, - I'll see what I can do. Almost all changes were accepted, with thanks, with the exception of versicle in the lead - something I "inherited" from earlier editors - which I found distracting and not helpful at that point, so removed from the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- RLO1729, I looked, more to come later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Unexpected deletion
Gerda Arendt, I suppose this edit deleted more than you wanted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, good catch. I used the feature to detect duplicate links, new to me, and need to be more careful, checking what it does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
TFAR
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Vespro della Beata Vergine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
List of psalms
These should be listed by the Catholic numbers, given that the article's about a piece of music written for Catholic liturgy. As it says, Monteverdi would have known them by those numbers, and the books containing this service would also have them by the Latin, not Hebrew numbering. If there's some sort of policy around here, please provide a link so it can be discussed there. It seems to me much like the policy on English: use British English on British topics and American English on American topics. Whatever the titles of the articles on the psalms are, those aren't what's used in the older Catholic liturgical books (which are still in use) or the music which is based on them. PaulGS (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I think we have a consensus here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose the changes made. A consensus on Wikipedia is something editors arrive at after considerations, and until then the status-pro-ante should be kept. I am aware that the psalm numbering is different in traditions, and that Monteverdi's time and some current Catholic bibles (but not ecumenical bibles!) counted differently from Wikipedia's article titles, which represent the Hebrew counting, both original and more familiar for a broad secular readership. I think to point at that difference on the first occasion, but then consistently use the numbers that are equal to article titles is less misleading than using the Catholic numbers in the body, misleading both with a piped link and (more!) without a link. The majority of our readers will not be trained Catholic, and know the psalms by the Hebrew numbers. The majority of the sources I saw use the Hebrew numbers. In the name of ecumenical numbering: please return to the status-quo-ante (accepted in several reviews) and run an RfC if you want a change in hundreds of articles, not just this one. You would - per this logic - have to split the settings of Psalm 130 in (Catholic) settings of Psalm 129 and the others, and do so for each of 150 psalms. - My approach of a compromise would be to say in the table "Psalm 110 (Psalmus 109)" for all five, but I really thought readers would get that from the introduction, explaining it for one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Re. "ecumenical bibles" – incorrect: they can have the "Psalm 109 (110)" or "Psalm 110 (109)" format as well. "Psalmus" is the Latin word for "Psalm", so can't be used for (WP:OR) "deductions" in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- (For where I come from: The Catholic church I go to would announce Psalm 110 when the German equivalent of Dixit Dominus is read. The concert program for the Vespers had those numbers that today's audience knows.) Wikipedia psalm article titles follow the original Hebrew numbering, and to mention a psalm by a different system (anywhere on Wikipedia) without a link or a text reference is misleading for a reader who reads only that section, and would look up that number (Psalm 109) in the example. To add the link would create duplicate links, and to repeat the text would be clumsy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- The article now follows the numbers formatted according to the indicated source, that is https://www.chandos.net/chanimages/Booklets/BT0978.pdf – that source gives the old Septuagint/Vulgate numbering first, followed by the Hebrew numbering in brackets. So I don't know why additional confusion (like as in spreading the fake news that this would not be covered by the current sources for the article) would be needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- (For where I come from: The Catholic church I go to would announce Psalm 110 when the German equivalent of Dixit Dominus is read. The concert program for the Vespers had those numbers that today's audience knows.) Wikipedia psalm article titles follow the original Hebrew numbering, and to mention a psalm by a different system (anywhere on Wikipedia) without a link or a text reference is misleading for a reader who reads only that section, and would look up that number (Psalm 109) in the example. To add the link would create duplicate links, and to repeat the text would be clumsy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Also, ecumenism is a much later concept, not really transferable to Monteverdi's world. Ecumenism also involves respecting someone else's belief system (not overriding it by a single vision), so if, from a modern point of view, we apply "ecumenism" to the situation, then we respect Monteverdi's numbering of the Psalms. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- The question is not - to my understanding - about one source in this one article, but whether to refer to the psalms the way the majority of our readers knows them, and our article names stand for, - or not. My goal is to not mislead a reader who comes across an unexplained Psalm 109 in this article. Mozart also knew Dixit Dominus as Psalm 109. His vespers articles call it Psalm 110, and I support that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please defer from WP:OSE arguments. Apart from being a type of argument that lacks weight in this discussion, that would also cut both ways – Wikipedia articles exclusively using the Septuagint numbering for Psalms exist likewise (of course properly indicating that that is the numbering used – so not confusing in any way). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- You don't hear me. I imagine a reader who jumps to a section in this article mentioning Psalm 109. What will they do? Look up Psalm 109, I guess. What help would you offer such readers? - While if it said Psalm 110, they'd arrive at the intented destination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Extending the convention of giving both numbers (in the format based on the Chandos source) on first occurrence in each section would be OK for me. After all, users might arrive in this article with various pre-knowledge, including recordings or concert programs that use the traditional numbering for Monteverdi's composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- E.g. this recording only has the Septuagint numbers for the Psalms on the backside of its box: someone buying or hiring that recording might be quite surprised when arriving somewhere in the middle of the current article on the composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: are we OK on this one? Seems there is some doubt... (see below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- You don't hear me. I imagine a reader who jumps to a section in this article mentioning Psalm 109. What will they do? Look up Psalm 109, I guess. What help would you offer such readers? - While if it said Psalm 110, they'd arrive at the intented destination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please defer from WP:OSE arguments. Apart from being a type of argument that lacks weight in this discussion, that would also cut both ways – Wikipedia articles exclusively using the Septuagint numbering for Psalms exist likewise (of course properly indicating that that is the numbering used – so not confusing in any way). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- The question is not - to my understanding - about one source in this one article, but whether to refer to the psalms the way the majority of our readers knows them, and our article names stand for, - or not. My goal is to not mislead a reader who comes across an unexplained Psalm 109 in this article. Mozart also knew Dixit Dominus as Psalm 109. His vespers articles call it Psalm 110, and I support that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Re. "ecumenical bibles" – incorrect: they can have the "Psalm 109 (110)" or "Psalm 110 (109)" format as well. "Psalmus" is the Latin word for "Psalm", so can't be used for (WP:OR) "deductions" in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Italicising Latin Psalm incipits in lists
I see that Latin Psalm incipits are italicised in prose, but not italicised in lists: I'd apply the same layout everywhere, that is, italicised via a {{lang|la|...}} tag. (this does not apply to Magnificat, etc, which are not Psalm incipits, but should also have a uniform style: for each of these titles/incipits, either always italicised, either not italicised neither in prose not in lists). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- To my understanding, they are italicised in prose to indicate where a first line begins and ends withon the prose, which is not needed in a list where that is clear. Change if you feel differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
False claim of consensus
I have reverted an edit - a disputed edit - which was made with a claim of consensus in this discussion. No such consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- By now the consensus seems pretty clear: all objections have been answered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus means editors are in agreement. Consensus does not mean objections were answered, for the obvious reason- answered to whose satisfaction. You do not have consensus for changes. Claiming you do is a mischaracterization, a misunderstanding of what consensus means, or dishonest. I assume you misunderstand. Please wait for agreement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- ??? Don't think you understand how consensus works. It is not the same as unanimity. Anyway, now the last obstacles appear to have been cleared for a workable consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- ?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken. Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- ????????? ... and now a series of WP:ASPERSIONS ... Please, try to get a grasp of how Wikipedia works. I don't control this page, have no ambition in that direction, and am disgusted at the idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Francis Schonken. Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- ?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is no consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- ??? Don't think you understand how consensus works. It is not the same as unanimity. Anyway, now the last obstacles appear to have been cleared for a workable consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus means editors are in agreement. Consensus does not mean objections were answered, for the obvious reason- answered to whose satisfaction. You do not have consensus for changes. Claiming you do is a mischaracterization, a misunderstanding of what consensus means, or dishonest. I assume you misunderstand. Please wait for agreement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)