Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vespro della Beata Vergine/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 June 2020 [1].

---

Vespro della Beata Vergine

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the Vespers for the Blessed Virgin, or Vespers of 1610, by Claudio Monteverdi whose birthday is today. His opera L'Orfeo, premiered in 1607, is the first opera still widely performed, and the Vespers are similarly exceptional. Monteverdi, aspiring to a better positiom than court musician in Mantua, demonstrated the broad range of his abilities, writing with a post in Rome in mind, but instead went to San Marco, Venice, a few years later. We don't know if the music was ever performed completely during his lifetime, nor if he actually expected it to be performed that way. Certainly musicologists and musicians have been fascinated from the 20th century on. Monteverdi set much more text than the usual 5 psalms + Magnificat, and required a 10-part choir in one psalm, and a rich orchestra. He combined the ever-present Gregorian chant with dramatic and virtuoso elements from the emerging opera, and offered a great diversity in musical styles and expression. Here is a short introduction, - in the background you hear an extreme performance, a recording which renders only the music Monteverdi wrote (and no additions to make it a proper liturgical vespers service), with 10 singers, and soloists for all instruments. I heard them in concert at the Rheingau Musik Festival which will be missed this year.

The article - the work of many over many years - received a GA review by The Rambling Man, a peer review with little attention (thank you SoWhy), and additional recent comments from RLO1729. Main contributors include Verbcatcher, Thoughtfortheday and Sparafucil. The main inspiration came from Brian Boulton who wrote the articles about the composer and his operas, and who generously left me the sources he had collected, the greatest honour I received in my ten years here. RIP. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Monteverdi_Marienvespers_voorpagina.jpg: source link is dead and this needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Viola_da_braccio.jpg
• File:Monteverdi_Marienvesper_Altus.jpg needs a US PD tag
• Deus in adiutorium.ogg: what gives the uploader the right to publish this work under a CC license? Same with Laudate_pueri.ogg
• File:AveMarisStellaChant.jpg is tagged as lacking author information, and as it's at Commons it will need a tag for status in country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for looking, calling help as before, RexxS. - I copied the ogg files just yesterday from FA Monteverdi, so felt safe. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've done what I can:

  1. File:Monteverdi Marienvespers voorpagina.jpg: source link given is the German Wikipedia. Unfortunately when it was uploaded to Commons, the file on dewiki was deleted and the information hidden, so I can't trace the source back. If you know a dewiki admin, you could ask if they can supply the actual source. Having said that, there are seven other copies on the internet according to Google search, but all are lower resolution, implying that the version on Commons is from a scan. In any case, the source is unlikely to matter as the original document is so old (1610) that no copyright is likely to exist unless the author of the Bassus Generalis has been living in Shangri-La. I've added {PD-US-expired|country=IT}, which isn't strictly applicable, but Republic of Venice doesn't have an ISO 3166-1 code.
  2. File:Monteverdi Marienvesper Altus.jpg: Again, the transfer to Commons broke the link back to the original upload. Similar to above regarding source. I've added {PD-US-expired|country=IT} and an English description. Perhaps Gerda will be kind enough to check my translation, please?

     You translated well. What you can't translate is that - in German - de:Marienvesper became a genre, but not in English. I don't know if Vespers for the Blessed Virgin, the translation of the Latin, is commonly used for such a thing, or again only a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  3. File:AveMarisStellaChant.jpg: interesting one. The 1912 Antiphonale Sacrosanctae Romamae Ecclesiae pro diurnis horis although published in 1912 by the Vatican, was standardised in 1570 after the Council of Trent. So the author's interests are not under consideration. The questions then are (i) does the Vatican own a copyright on the work? and (ii) which copyright law is applicable. It turns out that the Vatican does have a copyright law that dates from 2011, but which effectively re-enacts Italian copyright law. Additionally, the Holy See is a member to the Berne Convention, so we can treat it pretty much as we would Italy. It has VA as its ISO 3166-1 code. I've added {PD-US-expired|1=PD-old-100|country=VA}. The author of the chant may have been any one of a number of fourth or fifth century saints. The collection probably dates back to Pope Gregory I (died 604), but wasn't standardised until 1570. I've added a brief note to the author field.
  4. File:Deus in adiutorium.ogg: this is a tough one. The licence implies that the uploader Guido Magnano, who is the director of Cantica Symphonia, the performers, made a live recording of one of their performances in 2000 and had the authority in 2010 to release it under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. As the copyright owner is normally the owner of the recording equipment, none of that seems improbable to me. But then again, I'm usually inclined to AGF that an uploader who claims to be the photographer is likely to be telling the truth unless something suggests otherwise. I don't see anything amiss here, but perhaps I'm missing something – Nikkimaria have you spotted something suspicious?
  5. File:Laudate pueri.ogg: as above.
     1. @RexxS: The director on the recordings is identified as Giuseppe Maletto, while the uploader is Guido Magnano - what leads you to believe these are one and the same? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
        1. @Nikkimaria: Ah! My bad. I was reading the description field and thought "dir. G. Maletto" was the same name as the uploader. It shows how bad my Italian is that I can't even transcribe a proper name. It looks like Guido Magnano is only occasionally active on Commons, but maybe a note on their talk page would get more information and maybe sort out an OTRS. Otherwise I agree the licence doesn't look valid. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Let me know if I've missed anything. --RexxS (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, both. Would you, RexxS, perhaps address the uploader of the sound files? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  I've left a request on their talk page. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  He replied quite promptly at c:User talk:RexxS #Deus in adiutorium and linked to the Italian article on the ensemble where he's named as playing the positive organ. It all looks in order to me. Perhaps a hidden comment in the files descriptions on Commons would help for future queries? --RexxS (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Smerus

Fine article, I am happy to support FA status. I have no comments after a first reading, but will add any if they occur on further readings.--Smerus (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, David. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

OK here come first comments:

Lead

• para 1 " to distinguish it from other vespers printed in 1640 and 1651". I suggest " to distinguish it from his other Vespers printed in 1640 and 1651." (Capital "V" as we are referring here to specific "Vespers")

  Smerus, late q: why would Vespers be italic, when we have other generic names straight, Sonata, Requiem, Symphony? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would say because, first, we are here talking of a specific Vespers rather than Vespers generically; and secondly, because we are here using Vespers in effect as an abbreviation of Vespro della Beata Vergine, which would be in italics if we wrote it in full.--Smerus (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• I am not there yet, sorry. For the first, a specific one, we still don't say Requiem when speaking of a specific such composition, but Requiem, and not Symphony when speaking about a specific symphony, but Symphony. For the second, I have a hard time understanding Vespers, a plural word, as a short way to say Vespro, singular, plural would be Vesperae. Therefore, I'd think the capital Vespers would indicate clearly enough that this particular composition is meant, not the general kind of service, without italics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• It's only my suggestion and doesn't in any way affect my support for the article! I am happy to go with consensus.--Smerus (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Para 2 "musician and composer of the Gonzaga" - standard English practice would be to say "of the Gonzagas"
• Para 3 "grappled with"..."as opposed to" - I suggest neater would be "discussed"..."or"

Monteverdi in Mantua

• para 1 "advanced to become his leader, maestro della musica, in late 1601" - I suggest simply "advanced to become maestro della musica in late 1601". "his leader" is ambiguous, and redundant.
• para 2 "Probably aspiring to a better position...." As the subject of the sentence is "the composition" this needs adjusting. Also the use of "any" is not really colloquial imo. I think you mean that "M. wrote it to demonstrate that he was able to compose in a variety of contemporary styles, perhaps to advocate his own position."

More anon. Best,--Smerus (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, all taken, - I tried to rephrase the last-mentioned sentence, but am not yet convinced of "advocate". Please check. Further below, we found that Legacy would profit from more text, and possibly from being placed at the very end, - help with that welcome. - Please feel free to make minor changes right away, such as Vespers for vespers, with edit summaries. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding, I began moving things to a Legacy section - better name welcome for final evaluation - at the very end, in response to several requests below. It's still in progress, and help still welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A bit more:

Vespers

I am a bit out of my depth here (not my religion) but I think the phrase "Vespers contained five psalms..." is not quite clear. It did at the time, but as I understand it, it does not now, (and there are different versions for different rites). So maybe "Vespers at that period contained...." (with perhaps a note to explain the changes in 1970).

Whatever religion, the article Vespers is problematic. As far as I understand, "contained" suggests that it was in the past, but no problem adding "at the time". Mozart vespers also contain 5 psalms, see Vesperae solennes de confessore, Vesperae solennes de Dominica. Yes, changes in 1917 and 1970, and by now recommendations rather than prescriptions. When we do vespers, we have 3 psalms (last 8 March 2020, the last time we sang). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

First publication

• 1st para. You mention in passing " the music, mass, and vespers" in sentence 2, but don't explain what the mass is (Missa in illo tempore) until two sentences later. And do you need to have "music" here? - since it's obvious that these are musical compositions? Again, as we are referring to a specific piece, Vespers I think should be in capitals, and italicized. So perhaps better "Casola described the Vespers (together with the mass Missa in illo tempore), as in the process of being printed and said that Monteverdi would travel to Rome to personally dedicate the publication to the Pope in the fall." Then you can adjust the final sentence in the para by deleting the words "a separate composition, a mass called".
• Also maybe better to state in full and blue-link Pope Paul V in this first para - "Monteverdi would travel to Rome to personally dedicate the publication to Pope Paul V in the fall." - to save repeating the link in Para 4.

  Response to the two together: The source is the Foreword by Wolf, English, p. 12, para beginning "Very little is known about the genesis ...", where the letter by Casola is described. We can indeed take the name of the mass from that (which I'll do), but not a specific name of a pope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

?Might this section be better titled "Modern evaluation" or something like that? "Legacy" tends to imply that the work influenced other composers or writers, which is not the case here.--Smerus (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As said above, this is certainly not in its final state, and possibly not place. Usually we would have "Reception" here, but I hesitate because it's all much later. We have no equivalent yet for de:Marienvesper which has that Monteverdi's work became the model of a genre, or how to call it. I think a few lines about scholars such as Kurtzman might also be in order, especially as we have no article on him (yet). - Open for ideas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

again

• I was just looking at "Sections" and noticed that the first section " Deus in adjutorium meum intende" has a little table after it, effectively just repeating the previous text. The other sections don't have this table, except for 12 and 13 where complexity makes it useful and indeed necessary. It appears to me to unnecessary in the first section - just saying.

  It's unnecessary, that's sure, - I just know that some readers prefer information in prose, others structured, and why not have both here where it's short? It would be nice to do it for some of the complex movements also, but probably in a sub article, - compare St John Passion structure. --GA

• In No. 5 "Monteverdi set it for two sopranos, who are often sing in third parallels" - can I suggest instead "who frequently sing in parallel thirds." Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  will do, - and I added this to your section, - easier for a closer I think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

late entry

• 'Legacy' ends with the bald statement "Musicologists have debated topics such as the role of the concerti and sonata, instrumentation, keys (chiavette), and issues of historically informed performance." - without citation(s). Suggest you have a note here listing some examples. ("e.g. a, b, c and d").--Smerus (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you for the reminder. If you go in edit mode, you see that was not the planned end, but we had an early section (before I expanded): "The work presents intimate, prayerful moments within a monumental scale, and incorporates secular music in a decidedly religious performance, while its individual movements present an array of musical forms – sonata, motet, hymn, and psalm – without losing focus. quoted rather closely from https://books.google.de/books?id=8B_cAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA147 - will have to see whether to rephrase or use something differently". - and I didn't get to either rephrasing that, or write something else instead. Will try asap, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  The source gives Wikipedia as a source, which doesn't help much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  As a quick solution, I gave now Kurtzman the last word, - please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• This looks fine to me, Gerda. Bast ---Smerus (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Cass

Marking my place. Cassianto^Talk 16:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• "He was responsible for the duke's sacred and secular music.." -- Since we speak of both the Duke Vincenzo Gonzaga and Monteverdi, it perhaps might be clearer if you say who you're speaking of.

  Perhaps I have a language problem, - not a specific person, but whoever held the position, - how would that be worded. We could, instead, name the one who engaged him, or say something about court music? I feel that the name of a duke, with a link, is rather not needed for understanding this particular piece which was written to get away from that court? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The first work now considered as an opera is Jacopo Peri's Dafne of 1597." -- Firstly, by whom? Secondly, is there an "is" missing?

  This is in the linked articles, and I am not sure if more detail is needed for this work where all that matters is that M. wrote some of the music in the style of the emerging opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the "Legacy" section, there is a tag.

  There was a tag I had not seen before, so it took me a while, and not solved. It said that the ref didn't support a fact. I found a better ref, and even added some info. Problems: I found that most of the section "Legacy" was more or less copied from here. Question: should we write any Legacy section? If yes, at the very end. We could include the cantus firmus things in Analysis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• The "structure" section closes each para with no citations. There are also no sources at all for the table.

  What can we do. The very first ref in the section is the vocal score, Wolf, 2013, pages 1-141. Everything in the table is based on that, and so are the explanations above the table, and the page numbers are even in the table. How should that be clearer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• In the "Analysis" section: "In Monteverdi's time..." lifetime, surely? Also, watch the POV with lines like: "The print of his Vespers shows remarkable detail in reducing this freedom".

  It's rather "time" in the sense of "period", not lifetime. - Should "remarkable" be replaced? ... unusual? ... noteworthy? ...?? *: I took "unusual" for now, but feel that it's too pale for something THIS unusual, help to a better word or phrasing wanted, - as always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

More later. Cassianto^Talk 08:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for looking closely, some replies, also more later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support -- Nothing more from me. It looks hugely better since my last visit. Cassianto^Talk 18:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Ceoil

First impressions are good.

• The para opening with "Monteverdi's notation is still in the..." does not end with a cite. Reading through. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's what you see in the image. No idea how to "reference" that. I missed some details until yesterday, such as the embellished initials. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd be fine with referencing a source that contains a reproduction. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The copy in the Papal library is already mentioned in the article, - should the source be copied from the commons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

No, you just need to reference it. Ceoil (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Monteverdi's unique approach to each movement of the Vespers earned the composition a place in history.[40] - Not sure this adds anything, better to say why its regarded, which you do after so maybe cut. Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  This sentence was there I don't know from when, certainly already in 2018. Feel free, - I didn't, for respect for some unknown colleague ;) - "unique approach to each movement" is good, "earn ..." less so. Bedtime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm fine with the revised wording. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

• Monteverdi set it for two sopranos, who are often in thirds. Can we make this understandable to non specialists. Maybe, but who often sing in thirds. Not your problem, but I note the article on Major third is a mess, so havnt been able to fix this myself. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  changing to "third parallels", and yes, no good article to link to --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• here is no score, but a partbook for each voice and instrument. The corresponding basso continuo notes the beginnings of text lines, for example Magnificat, "Et exultauit.", "Quia respexit." and "Quia fecit", and the names of instruments, for example cornetto, trombone and flauto. - we dont explain what a partbook is. Also would not give all the examples of opening lines; you cover that adequately later in the article. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  I didn't know what a partbook is, and I didn't know the alto partbook has the bass also (and the article on partbook which I now linked doesn't say so). This is some key to understanding the whole thing, and I believe it therefore should come early. I guess we shouldn't present the same image twice, otherwise it would of course be better where the Magnificat is covered, at the beginning where it could be pointed out that two sections of its nine sections of cantus firmus were dedicated to the alto. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  Sounds good. Only catching up now. Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm close to support on prose and clarity here. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Some more

• The words "The sonata is an instrumental movement" imply to me that its an instrumental, but from here [2] I gather not. Please explain.

  It says "an instrumental movement with soprano singing of a cantus firmus from the Litany of Loreto", = instrumental with singing, - you could make that (or not) "the instrumental with singing movement", but not "the instrumental movement", - or leave as is. --GA

The word "instrumental " is misleading and redundant. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re [3] can we either capitalise all instances of "vespers" outside of titles, nor not. The vespers article does not use CAPS.

  That's what I tried to do, no capitals for when the office (service) is meant, capital when it'a a short name for a composition, as we would say "the Concerto" in an article about Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart), or "the Sonata" in an article about a Brahms Cello Sonata. --GA

  You have lost me in your intention. It seems to a casual reader that its randomly capitalised. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

• Re [4] it might be useful to explain in the opening that vesters are evening prayers without forcing click through. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  I feel that there are so many things for which he have no room in that lead, that it's undue weight. Most people interested in this specific piece will already know. In an article about Mozart's Sparrow Mass, you wouldn't explain in brackets what mass is, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Re "Will already know"; not sure the page should be a closed shop for the converted/experts...see here...."book of hours, a form of devotional book for lay-people". Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  I understand what you mean, but please first answer my question: would you explain what mass is? Or what prayer is? - I love the beauty of links, which would spare me reading "a form of devotional book for lay-people" if I already know that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  Wouldn't spare or assume anything; I'd pith the article towards a general reader, the fabled reasonably intelligent 17 year old who could be from any country or background. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  The article is for said person in the body where it's explained, but I believe the lead should be concise, and that 17-year old would know that, and perhaps even see that there's a section Vespers in the TOC. - You still didn't answer if you'd explain mass or prayer, and where the difference would be. - In articles about Bach cantatas, I don't explain what a cantata is. - Past midnight here, I feel I'm not at my best, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  That seems the wrong way around. Lead is for generalists and people who are scanning for basic understanding...knowing what a vespers is strikes me as very basic info. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am sorry about being boring, but would you say we need to explain mass, - and where would the difference be if not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Will have another think about these in evening, taking your views into account. Note none are deal breakers for me. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'm good with your responses Gerda, so this last sect can be thought of as resolved. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

  Moving to Support on prose, having read the article in detail, several times. Ceoil (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Dweller

• Please explain what a motet is. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no, because it's a word of many meanings. I gave it a link in the lead, and another in the body. In both cases, it's next to concerti, another word with many meanings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• I don't understand what this means, especially following the first half of the sentence. "with the liturgical role of the concerti and sonata, and with instrumentation, chiavette, and other issues of performance practice." It may be out of place in the Lead - too detailed and difficult to explain succinctly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  We didn't even speak about the same sentence, - I was at the first mentioning of "motet" in the lead. I agree that "your" sentence is needlessly "for insiders only". (I bet it's still there from some early version.) I need to jump right now, but promise to change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I was raising a new point. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  will change today, promised (see Wehwalt's comments below) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• What does "Incipit" mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I chenged it to "Latin" - otherwise incipit - you can just see from where I copied the table and forgot to change the header ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "It is not clear whether he was honoured with a papal audience.[3][30]" Not relevant to this article and perhaps not even worth including in a biog. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

  I think that's wrong. This whole gigantic extreme composition was likely made to get a better position, best at St. Peter's in Rome. It seems to matter in the context, and was already mentioned in early versions of this article, - not by me that is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Butt described the first three psalms as radical in style" was he referring to the Psalms (as implied, which is irrelevant) or to the music? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

  ... the music - while more detail of the meaning of these psalms, beginning with their choice, and how Monteverdi translated meaning to music would be nice to have more about, and I already asked if that should go here or in a dedicated sub-article. - Did you see that the chiavetta are gone from the lead? I found an excellent new source, will use more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes

• It would be nice if the Vespers from 1651 was linked like the 1640 Vespers; even if a red link.

  Red links are discouraged in Featured articles, afaik. --GA

• I assume the table of psalms is the Hebrew numbering? Including a caption to that effect, or providing both Hebrew and Vulgate numberings would be helpful to clear up any ambiguity.

  There is the line just above the table, - is that too little? We could expand the explanation, or even have a separate column saying listing "Psalmus 109" etc. --GA

• There are a couple places where links to two different articles are adjacent which is somewhat confusing per MOS:SOB. I think rephrasing them to avoid the adjacent links would also improve readability as it gives more opportunities to briefly expand on what the terms mean. For example, "The individual psalms and the Magnificat are concluded by the doxology Gloria Patri"; making "doxology" into an apposition would provide better context and differentiate the links which seems like a win-win.

  Do you mean "Gloria Patri doxology", which would still be adjacent? --GA

• The sectioning is appropriate, but I wonder if it could be improved? It felt like the information on the score itself came rather late, and that the information on later publications, performances, and legacy would fit better closer to the analysis and recording sections which call back to them.

  Would you think to stop history after "First publication", then Description", then the later things beginning with Later publication? - In biographies, we usually have life and work, - with also the work coming late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think any of these cause the article to fail the FA criteria, so I'm happy to support as-is. I haven't looked closely at the sourcing or media, so I'm supporting on prose alone. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Perhaps we could raise some questions for discussion among others, - compare placement and naming of Legacy, above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support and comments from Jim

A fitting tribute, just a couple of comments to show I've read it

• Dukes of Gonzaga in Mantua—more accurately Gonzaga Dukes of Mantua I don't think they were Dukes of Gonzaga

  will try that, made me smile—GA

• Laudate pueri in the first table, you translate using the KJV, which is more of a gloss than a literal translation, as you recognise later when you write The second psalm is Psalm 113, beginning Laudate pueri Dominum (literally: 'Praise, children, the Lord—Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the literal translation at first mention?

  Well, I thought readers would rather be familiar with the psalm in English than in Latin (or number), therefore used KJV for easy recognition. Between writing that last year and now, however, I learned that English-speaking churchgoers might rather be familiar with the Book of Common Prayer version, which I would have to look up, unless someone beats me to it. --GA

• Pope in the fall—given that you have written in BE, wouldn't "autumn" be more appropriate than the US name for the season?

  taken, - my English education was a hopeless mix ;)—GA

Great stuff Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Jim, replied above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "it is sometimes called the Vespers of 1610 to distinguish it from his other Vespers published in 1640 and 1651" I would put a "Monteverdi" as substitute for either "the" or "his".

  I looked at that sentence again, and feel that the other vespers, not mentioned in the article, are no lead material. It was called 1610 Vespers to make it simple. It was even the article title when I met it here, years ago. --GA

• Are the Gonzagas the "dukes of Mantua" or the "Dukes of Mantua"?

  I tried a better llnk, having a reason to say Dukes. --GA

• "He possibly composed the Vespers aspiring to a better position," As in a better job? This could be made clearer, perhaps by saying what would have been an upgrade for him.

  I'd say "upgrade" if within an organization, but he tried to get away, - more in the bio. Mantua was a small place, and Rome a location where he would be noticed. Perhaps a few more words from the bio would be in order, but am not sure, nor if his turn to church music had to do with belief (his wife had died) or prestige, or both, and the question has in the end not much to do with this specific music. --GA

• Why is LORD in Psalm 110 when the Lords of the other psalms also seem to refer to the divinity?

  This comes from our Wikisource of the KJV version of the Bible, where different renderings of the word indicate different words in Hebrew, for which English has only one. Perhaps, in this context, that doesn't matter? --GA

  I can help with this. As you can read in our article on Psalm 110, it opens with two words that when translated lead to ambiguity. The tetragrammaton, followed by the Hebrew for "my Lord" or "my master". In Hebrew they can mean the same thing or it can mean G-d and man respectively. See Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Adonai. As they can both be translated Lord, this leads to interesting divergences in interpretation, as shown in Psalm_110#Interpretation. KJV is therefore being careful by differentiating between LORD and Lord in the same text, although not as careful as going for "master"... but that would have felt rebellious to Christendom. It's a clever way out of a bit of a bind... 4 centuries later, we can really appreciate it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Cardinal" As this is the only mention, you might want to link it.

  taken, although a sea of blue then, - I actually thought that Pope/Bishop/Cardinal are well-known terms of positions in the Catholic Church. --GA

• "It was published together with the mass Missa in illo tempore.[22]" Is this a Monteverdi work?

  tempted to say "of course" - in a publication meant to make HIS name known - but adding his name --GA

• "The notation poses challenges to editors adopting the current system of notation, which established about a half century after Vespers was written.[25]" Maybe "using" or "used to" for "adopting"?

  I feel it could be improved - and it's one of the sentences from early versions of this article - but think "using" is too weak. Look at the image and see how far that is from the current music notation, and that no ordinary present musician who didn't receive special training could perform from it, beginning with no score, - imagine you are the conductor. Help wanted. "translate"? --GA

• Done through legacy, will resume with the music.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
• Does the first paragraph of "structure" require additional sourcing?

  As responding somewhere above: the whole section is based on the vocal score (Wolf, 2013), and it more or less explains the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• You refer six times to cornettos and twice to cornetts. Same thing, right?

  yes, another good catch, I decided for cornetto, to avoid confusion with cornet - gives me the idea to picture them. A performance lives or dies with them, and there are few in the world who master it (and if you don't it's miserable, not just not good). When I listened to the Collegium Vocale Gent last year, I met a conductor who said he would have loved to perform the piece but had no cornettos. --GA

• "Monteverdi set it for two sopranos, who are often sing in third parallels." Often sing? Some issue or other.

  trying something, but hard - was changed already, - if only we had an article to link to (see above) --GA

• "while the other two rather follow the polychoral style of Gabrieli, suggesting that the first three may have been composed especially with the publication in mind.[41]" This is unclear. What "publication" are we referring to? The 19th century one? Clearly Monteverdi could not have composed with that publication in mind.

  Perhaps you can word that better, and perhaps it should go to the history section. "this publication" means the 1610 one. Musicologists see different styles, and assume that he had some of the parts already composed (as single psalms and concerti) when he had the (crazy?) idea of the complete "work" - if it was meant as one, and not just a collection, and which it certainly became in history - and they further assume that he wrote other compositions after he had the idea, which he wrote - of course - even more showy, some going to extremes. --GA

• Is ref 35 one page or 141?

  As said above (structure), its the 141 pages of the vocal score (with a good introduction in English worth reading completely), and the individual pages of movements are noted in the table. It would be nice if we had an online document of a score where we could link directly to given pages, but this is as close as I could get to let interested readers look at the music (in current notation, of course). --GA

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for diligent looking and comments. Two questions came up above to which you might contribute: the lead (Smerus and others) - which I'll probably change today, needs less detail of music specialties (chiavetta), and more overview - and if the description should go further up, perhaps after First publication, as Wugapodes suggested, and I kind of like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Shearonink

• General comments - great article, well-researched. Kind of funny we don't know much about the performance history and that scholars are arguing about exactly what the Vespro is/are...some centuries later.
• I am concerned about who or what actually owns or controls the sound files. I read further up the page that the uploader Guido Magnano is one of the instrumentalists/the organist in the Cantica Symphonia. It is not clear to me, however, that he manage the group's copyright/owns the copyright or has the authority to gift recorded performances to the public at large. Do we need a UTRs filing or something similar laying out that these recorded performances are published on Commons under a CC-BY-SA licensure/etc? Shearonink (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am completely helpless when it comes to file licenses, - trusting that Nikkimaria and RexxS will sort it out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Now that we've verified the uploader is one of the performers I'm inclined to AGF that he does have the right to release, but the OTRS idea is not a bad one for completeness, particularly since we know the uploader is around/responsive. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Coord note

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, looks like we're about there but:

• Like to see a couple more citations in Vespers, one for the table (the cite could probably go at the end of the sentence finishing but known to Monteverdi as Psalmus 109 in the numbering of the Vulgate:) and one for the last sentence in the subsection, ending with (because she is generally connected with Trinity).

  I added a citation which even has both psalm numbering systems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• The table at the top of the Structure subsection could use citation too, perhaps at the end of the previous sentence (The last column lists the page number of the beginning of the section in the Carus edition).

  Sigh. The ref is after the first sentence, and all the rest only explains what the table headers mean. The ref is hardly for the explanation, but I duplicated it anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• You italicise Song of Songs in one instance but not in another -- as a book of the Bible I'd assume it doesn't take italics but in any case we should be consistent.

  Fixed, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• You also have several duplinks in the article that should be rationalised -- do you have the checker script?

  No, I don't. It's a long article. In tables, we should link all, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Please give me a few more days, I'm with dear company for festive reasons which is so rare this year. As this is planned for 1 September, we in no rush, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Ian Rose, I found a few minutes to look, - please check again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tks Gerda, I'm glad you were able to enjoy some festivities at this weird time in history! Two things:

• Per my first point above, can we have the statement ending (because she is generally connected with Trinity) cited?
• The duplink checker doc/script is here. Yes, duplinks in tables are okay I believe.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• I overlooked the Trinity fact, sorry, - inherited from earlier authors, - will have to check, as for the duplinks, - thank for the help to the checker. Past midnight, - nothing useful would come out of me trying right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

  Ian, I struggled with the duplinks (inadvertantly deleted 10k ...) and commented out the minor detail about the Duo Seraphim having to do with Barbara, until I find a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Source Review - Pass

• The Grove article and PDF in the books sections should be moved the "online." While I recognize that the Grove may have originally been used in a book format, you don't have a specific edition to cite so online makes more sense. The PDF seems to be a score, but I still think "online" makes sense, as the score doesn't have an ISBN, making it not a book by that definition.

  I moved them. I don't know which Grove version the one before me used. In choir, we used a different score, but I believe the possibility to look online is important. --GA

• Since you're linking books, Monteverdi's musical theatre has this google book

  Will look, but am busy this week. --GA

  I looked anyway but got a 502 error. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  Probably a temporary error. It seems to be working now so I went ahead and added the link. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• I would add a "language=" to the Claudio Monteverdi: Vespro della Beata Vergine / Marienvesper / Vespers 1610

  Well, I add a language as a warning when not English, but this one cites pages in English, and music is Italian - international. What would you suggest? --GA

  Ah I didn't notice the English translation below, I assumed you were citing the German. Should be fine then Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Ref 35 seems unnecessary as it cites 140 pages. The first and second uses can probably be removed as they are at the ends of lines with a ref that already covers the information. I suppose the 3rd use, after "The following table shows the section numbers according to the 2013 edition by Carus," is appropriate.

  It is a ref for the table, rather than adding individual references. What do you suggest? --GA

  I've thought about it and while removing the page numbers all together in this case probably makes the most sense, a perceptive reader might then question why there are no page numbers. It's fine how it is. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Yale University Press and The Musical Times missing links.

  Thank you, added. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Everything else, formatting and reliability-wise looks good. Aza24 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• 36 doesn't seem to cover the male voices part. It looks like the same book does mention it on 376 though.

  Unfortunately, I get the same error as above, which could be a temporary google problem. --GA

  Seems to be working now, for me at least. Try checking again when you get a chance. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

  done, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• 42 doesn't seem to cover the part about L'Orfeo, it is covered on pg. 8 of the same book though?

  You are right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• 5, 18, 29 51, 60 are Good - Aza24 (talk) 05:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, I'll check, knowing that you are almost always right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review: Pass (Since there were two that didn't cover I checked some more: 2, 7, 23 and 31 all of which cover their respective sections/sentences.) Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Very late reminder

There still remains the question of the heading 'Legacy' (see above). The discussion in this section all centres on modern interpretations. So a better heading might be 'Modern reception'? Apologies for being boring and returning to this. Best, Smerus (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Not at all, I have time between two celebrations to adopt that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.