Jump to content

Talk:Giuseppe Verdi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Misc.

Bit rambling.

If you don't like what you see, feel free to fix it. Anyone can edit on Wikipedia. I haven't had time to get to it yet. Antandrus 16:47, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I enjoyed the article, but I felt it implied that Rigoletto and La Traviata were "better" than the later operas like Falstaff and Otello. I don't believe this view is widely held enough to be considered neutral. I considered removing the paragraph about how wonderful Rigoletto is, but didn't because it seemed a shame. Instead how about someone writing something equally eloquent about Falstaff or Otello to provide the balance?
The paragraph about Verdi living until 1904 so what might he have thought of those other operas did seem a bit "rambling" to me.
BenC 22:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

and i also think that someone should include a picture of margherita barezzi (his first wife) as well, coz she is so freakin beautiful! no wonder verdi fell in love with her. i've browsed the net for her portrait, but unfortunately the search engine didn't turn out any results. :-(

NPOV tag

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giuseppe Verdi. Extraordinary Machine 12:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Rigoletto's.... "beauty"?

It's incredible that Rigoletto is phraised for its beautiful melodies. If Verdi would read this, he'd become very, very angry! What about Bellini's melodies, then? Rigoletto is drama, is band-music, is the intentional triviality of the court, is the minimalistic melody of Caro nome, is the one-note-only melody of Monterone and Rigoletto (as a father), is many things among which, also, very few really beautiful melodies (Tutte le feste al tempio, Bella figlia dell'amore .... not much more than this). Please, English language people correct this! thanks from Italy....

  • Amen to that. I deleted that passage, but it was reverted. It'd be stupid to get into an edit war, but the fact of that matter is that this passage:

Unspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left, passages of celestial beauty scattered like pearls and never repeated, numerous arias, duets, trios and a quartet follow one another in an unceasing celebration of musical genius; passions vibrate; comedy and tragedy merge seamlessly.

has absolutely NO business being in an encyclopedia. Not only is it point of view, but from someone who seems to know about music (above, anon), it's not even right. Can someone who does know about music rewrite this whole article? Zafiroblue05 14:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Summary of FAC criticisms

To people considering editing this article, please consider the following. The current form of the article was largely written by Ricardo the Texan, who didn't believe in POV on WP. Big arguments resulted, and I'll try here to list the criticisms buried in the FAC subpage, and which have been taken care of...

  • The passage that begins: "Unspeakably beautiful melodies are tossed right and left..."
    • Rewritten by Francesco
  • "Strewn with POV comments" - referring to such things as declaring Rigoletto as a "great masterpiece", Otello being "masterfully orchestrated" but lacking "melodic luster," and so on.
    • These statements can be in Wikipedia, absolutely - they just have to be supported. If Rigoletto is a great masterpiece, it's a great masterpiece - you just need to quote some critics saying so.
  • An untagged image
    • This was the Giuseppina image - I tagged it as in the public domain, because the painting was clearly made before 1923[1] (or 100 years ago, or whatever); however, I don't have *proof* that it was - anyone know the source for this painting?
  • Parenthetical text
    • Has largely been taken out of parentheses, tried to make it flow better
  • Comparison of birth year to Wagner
    • My thought - I think this should stay in, it's notable. But looking at it again, it's sort of out-of-place. I'm taking it out for now, but anyone can feel free putting it back in where they can fit it.
  • It may have been Giuseppina herself who convinced him to continue his career. is criticized as a "weasel term", ie not firm enough
    • If there's evidence for this, present it; if there's not, remove it
  • Only two sources referenced
    • More sources listed, but POV statements such as "greatest opera," "melodic gift," etc. need to be backed up by sources
  • No mention of String Quartet or "Four Sacred Pieces"
  • No mention of controversy over Requiem for being "too operatic" for a religious work
  • No mention of political implications of his work
  • Descriptions of operas are brief - "lacking in information on plot, theory, ways of interpretation"
    • That being said, descriptions of operas SHOULD be brief, IMO; a discussion of plot, theory, and ways of interpretation belongs in each particular opera's separate articles. Still, expansion is certainly possible

Anyways, this article has a long way to go until featured article status, though it certainly could get there. Unfortunately, I know little to none about operas, in this case I can just be a copy-editory... So anyone who does know stuff, feel free to fix each of the problems listed above. I've bold-faced the parts still needing improvement - if you satisfy one, please un-bold it... Zafiroblue05 21:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Verissimo?

should verissimo be mentioned somewhere? (it's not in wikipedia) where does it fit in? What is it? I thought Verdi was an example of verissimo, meaning ultra-real or 'vivid' style. Srl 09:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean with verissimo. Do you mean verismo? Actually, Verdi's works haven't evident links with French naturalism or Italian verism. They have important links with (French) realism, especially (but not only) in Stiffelio, Rigoletto and La traviata. Al Pereira 16:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, verismo! It would help if I spelled it properly. It is under Category:Opera genres but not listed under genres at opera, but i see that it has its section on that page. Thank you. Srl 16:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Verdi's "Force of Destiny" was written for the Mariinsky? the Bolshoi? the Imperial??

After finding a reference in this article to the premiere of "La forza del destino" taking place in the "Imperial Theatre" in Saint Petersburg, I found that the link went nowhere, so created a link to the Mariinsky, assuming that they were one and the same.

Then I went to various books I own to see what the source of all this is, and I found the following:

Budden, Vol. 2,(paperback), notes on page 427 a letter to the composer asking "would Verdi consider a commission from the Imperial Theatre of St Petersburg".

Phillips-Matz, page 439, says "a proposal from the Imperial Theatre" was sent to Verdi in December 1860.

NOW - Budden gives the first performance as: "Bolshoi Theatre on 10 November 1862" (p.426), whereas Phillips-Matz states in the Appendix: "premiere at Imperial Theatre", same date as Budden, (page 893).

THEN - I looked at Thierry Beauvert's Operas Houses of the World and he refers to the "Bolshoi Theatre" constructed in 1783, rebuilt in 1817 after a fire; then later to the 1855 Circus Theatre which burnt down and was reconstructed by Cavos (sic) as the Mariinsky. (page 68). But he states (page 72) that the world premiere of Forza "was a work commissioned for the Maryinsky" (sic).

SO - -Can we assume that the "Bolshoi" is the same as the "Imperial"??? -Was Verdi's opera really written for the Mariinski?

PS: books named above are referenced in the Verdi article, plus the Beauvert is on the Opera houses page.

Vivaverdi 19:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

___________

Sorry, guys, I hate to throw a monkey wrench in your discussion, but
the Forza review in the "Journal de St. Petersbourg", dated Nov.11, 1862

(= Oct.30 in the Russian calendar) begins with this sentence:

"It is midnight. We have just left the first performance of the new opera which Maestro Verdi has written expressly for the Italian Theatre of St. Petersburg." The review is quoted in its entirety by Charles Osborne, Verdi. A Life in the Theatre, New York: Fromm 1987

Dunnhaupt 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessarily a "monkey wrench". There are so many many names for these theatres at this time that one has to be careful. So far, the version which our Russian friend has put together would seem to be right. Vivaverdi 01:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Chorus of the Hebrews and Verdi's Funeral

Although I did not see it referenced here, I recall during a course at Harvard the instructor indicated that Va, pensiero was "spontaneously" sung by the people of Milan during Verdi's funeral as his body was carried through the streets. The additional element that there was an orchestra and that Toscanini conducted is an element I did not recall, but have seen mentioned on multiple occasions.

Anybody with regular interest in this page have any sources that confirm or deny this legend? I confess I've added it without adequate references, but I do believe it's another lovely element of Verd's legend, and especially of his role in the Risorgimento. hargettp 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

According to Mary Jane Phillips-Matz, author of the massive 900 page biography of Verdi (this is cited in the References section), "the crowds at the funeral procession were silent" (p.764) but that refered only to the rather simple funeral which Verdi had decreed. She quotes a contemporary account of the funeral which says the same thing.
But she goes to describe a concert conducted by Toscanini at La Scala two days after the funeral (which included the Overture from Nabucco). About a month later - 27 Feb 1901 - the offical memeorial service took place and the bodies of both Verdi and Stepponi were re-buried at the Casa di Riposa. She writes: "before the cortege left the cemetary, Toscanini condducted a chorus of 820 voices in Va, Pensiero... After it reached the Casa di Riposa, the Miserere from Il trovatore was sung. (page 765)
This would seem to mean that what the article says is not correct. Her Verdi biography is regarded as pretty much as definitive.
Vivaverdi 15:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle Royale

Should it be mentioned that Verdi is featured on the soundtack for the movie Battle Royale? - Deathrocker 09:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Giuseppe Verdi

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Durova (replying to old comment): I support this approach in general, but I don't know if there's going to be enough for any composers except Mozart and Beethoven (perhaps Bach?) to fill a page like that beyond stub length. If there are, I say, by all means create. --Myke Cuthbert 04:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

King Lear, opera

I agree with the removal of this unfinished piece from this list, but I would suggest that unfinished works do belong on the List of compositions by Giuseppe Verdi; all music encyclopedias that I know, list such things, as they are extremely valuable for researchers.

--Myke Cuthbert 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just put Re Lear up for deletion, when I saw your note. Perhaps you can help me? Searching through my reference books I can't find any mention of any music written by Verdi for Lear. The opera appears to be 'unstarted' rather than 'unfinished'. The contributor to Re Lear says that Cammarano finished a libretto, but again I can't find any source for this, however it is recorded that Verdi discussed a possible libretto for Lear with Antonio Somma after the death of Cammarano. The project fell through and they worked on other ideas. -- Kleinzach 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a journal article in English on it: G. Schmidgall: "Verdi’s King Lear Project", 19th Century Music, ix (1985–6), 83–101. (From the New Grove Dictionary of Opera). Anybody have JSTOR access? Otherwise next time I'm at the library I can look it up. Antandrus (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Verdi's Death?

Nothing is said about Verdi's death....

NewYork1956 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the alert. I've put something in now. JackofOz 03:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Verdi's political career

I'm surprised to see nothing about the fact that Verdi was involved in civic life throughout the 1860s and '70s. Already a member of his provincial parliament, he was elected to the first national parliament in 1860, withdrawing in 1865. He became Senator in 1875, and from what I understand was even offered a marquiship (marchese-ship?) by the king, in 1893, although he turned it down. While politics was neither his great love nor his most estimable gift, it seems certain he was a patriotic man living in a time in which the country his hometown could claim to be a territory of changed a few times; his lengthy involvement seems to bear mention. Abrazame (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "and went well beyond the work of Vincenzo Bellini|Bellini, Donizetti, and Gioachino Rossini|Rossini"

While this may be a subjective remark, it is one which could proably be substantiated by reference to authors who would agree that Verdi's work did go beyond that of the other composers mentioned.

Can we find some authoritative source to reference? 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I was surprised to see the following in the intro: "Although his work was sometimes criticized for using a generally diatonic rather than a chromatic musical idiom and having a tendency toward melodrama..." Aside from being uncited this reminds me all to much of the old-fashioned, German-centric way of looking at musical history. And even if this was the case, should this really be in the introduction?! Hmm. almost-instinct 22:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"...tendency toward melodrama..." Melodrama in an opera? Who'd a-thunk it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Media/recordings from the early 20th century

Once again a number of early recordings are being added to this page. Are they appropriate? The recordings are important ones and belong on the singers biography pages, but do they adequately represent the composer himself for average readers of this (high profile) article? What do other people think? --Kleinzach 11:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, unless there are better versions of these arias available, the inclusion of these links does give an average reader, who may not know anything about Verdi's music, an opportunity to sample it. But I've not listened to these since I do not seem to have apprpriate software and my hard drive is 95% full.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking of sound files

While the new format looks pretty good, it doesn't allow us to link to the opera in question. Is this a problem? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I took a look and changed the file's description to include the wiki-linked opera title for Ernani. If they're all done this way, we'll the direct link. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed the others to that standard, with one minor tweak (I think that the year looks better in parentheses). Do you think we have enough for now? There's a pre-restored-but-no-copyright-claim MacBeth ([2]) over at the Internet Archive that just needs copied over (I suppose I should sort that out either way), and I'm sure I could find a decent Celeste Aida or similar. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your layout looks fine now. Well done! As far as adding more, another early and a late one makes sense to give a balance. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little uncomfrtable using the one Falstaff I've found - it's the one he sings his temporary depression at the start of Act III, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with having our only sample from Falstaff be the big anomaly in a work filled with fun and energy. Maybe I'll try for his Sabat Mater - it'd be a good balance to have just a little of his non-operatic output. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
P.S. God, I wish I had a good '"Va, pensiero"! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7 from Earnest Newman's book

Is the following, which was recently added, a quotation from the book or the editor's speculative query?

Ernest Newman, Stories of the Great Operas. Philadelphia: The Blakinson Company, 1930, p. 597. Did he feel himself somehow guilty of at least indirectly causing that assassination? For almost 30 operas he composed throughout his long life, at least half dealt with killings, murder and other sort of violent ends of various personage, including assassination plots against kings, leaders, or men in charge in six of them: Attila, Macbeth, Rigoletto, Les vêpres siciliennes, Simon Boccanegra, and Un ballo in maschera

Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Viva Verdi?

So Verdi being an acronym of "Vittoria Emmanuel Re d'Italia" has been relegated to mythological status... Why is this? Does anyone have a reference? Thanks tedneeman (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any references claiming this was a myth, and 2 recent reliable sources that verify it, so I've un-mythified it for now. tedneeman (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Italian Roman Catholics

Poor Verdi! If he would have known that somebody would have categorized him among the catholics.... --Al Pereira(talk) 09:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


  • Why exactly is the fact that he's an atheist noteworthy enough to be in the introductory paragraph? This reeks of someone using this page to advance their beliefs, which is not what wikipedia is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.107.162 (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you know ...

Viva Verdi --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Giuseppe Verdi
Composer of Italian opera
Portrait by Giovanni Boldini, 1886
Born(1813-10-09)9 October 1813 (or 10 October)
Le Roncole
Died27 January 1901(1901-01-27) (aged 87)
Milan, Kingdom of Italy
List of compositions by Giuseppe Verdi
Signature

Prepared by discussion in the workshop, I think a very basic infobox, mainly the dates of death and birth which are nowhere else visible together in the article, would not damage it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

"nowhere else visible together in the article"? They are visible together in the first sentence of the lead, and there are more correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
sorry twice, I confused "dates" and "data" (should have been the latter), and missed the "9 or 10" (but added "9" now) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
simplified further --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Verdi composed French operas, choral music, songs, a string quartet and other pieces in addition to Italian operas so the infobox information is not accurate and an infobox is not necessary.Smeat75 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

FAC?

Hello. I am thinking about doing a massive rework on the article to get it up to FA status. The objective is to have it as a TFA on 10 October 2013, the 200th anniversary of Verdi's birth. Suggestions on how to improve the article are welcome. At some point, this article will be taken up for a peer review. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Just as in the case of the article Richard Wagner (currently at WP:FAC), this is an excellent idea. I will go through this article and post here. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
What happened to this idea? The article is very very poor, shameful. I removed quite a few unsourced assertions that had been sitting there with "citation needed" tags for years but it is still full of dubious and I think simply wrong statements, for instance I am pretty sure it was Cosima, not Richard, Wagner whose comment on Verdi's Requiem was "best not to say anything" and in any case that quote needs a source.Smeat75 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Performance rankings in "later compositions" section

"Between 1855 and 1867 there was an outpouring of great Verdi operas, among them such repertory staples as Un ballo in maschera (1859), La forza del destino (commissioned by the Imperial Theatre of Saint Petersburg for 1861 but not performed until 1862), and a revised version of Macbeth (1865). Other somewhat less often performed include Les vêpres siciliennes (1855) and Don Carlos (1867), both commissioned by the Paris Opera and initially given in French." If I read this correctly, it implies Ballo, Forza and Macbeth being more often performed than Vêpres and Don Carlos, which is at odds with recent operabase statistics. I'd suggest getting rid of the implied ranking. Avocadohead (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point being made, but I think that we need to be clear as to what period of time we are referring to.
I went to Operabase and looked at the top 100 operas performed. Without doing that, we don't know the range of years being referred to: is it the five seasons 2008/13 or the one season, 2012/13?
When you list the top 100, it then says 2012/13 and we see the following:
Number 24 - Ballo
Number 27 - Macbeth
Number 43 - Don Carlos (sic)
Number 75 - Forza del destino
  • Vepres ain't nowhere (as they say in parts of the country I happen to live in at the moment). When it comes to world-wide presentations of this opera, although many of us know (and have seen) the late 2013 Covent Garden production, are there other significant productions in French??
  • Regarding Don Carlos (French) versus Don Carlo (Italian), are we sure which one of the two is included? YES, because it specifically states the more-rarely performed French versions rather than the now-more-frequently seen Don Carlo and I Vespri Siciliani, not that we can say that the latter is seen very much.
  • The Verdi bi-centennial year can hardly be regarded as typical of Verdi operas given, and it would be good to have stats on a five-year spread.

I think, for now, we have to let this stand. Viva-Verdi (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right to raise the point of popularity metrics, which is a dicey subject anyway (are we talking Google trends, no. of recordings, high profile productions etc.?) With respect to version fragmentation, we are probably justified to lump everything together as long as the majority of the musical material is identical - too many operas have a convoluted genesis in any case (cf. Swedish vs. Bostonian Ballo, or posthumous completions like Turandot or Khovanshchina). Also note the "initially given in French", implying that this includes the later Italian version, if we want to nitpick ;) Still, I think that all of this rather strengthens the case for removing the performance ranking and just noting that the two operas were composed for Paris and in French. Speaking as a huge Don Carlo(s) fan, of course... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocadohead (talk • contribs) 13:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the above. I've gone ahead to revise the wording a bit (though the whole article needs lots and lots of work - which one day I'll tackle...) and to make things a bit clearer.

In the case of Don Carlos/Don Carlo, there's an added complication: when announced and advertised by opera companies (and therefore when Operabase picks up on them), we have to be careful in checking whether the spelling = the actual version. Too many times do I see Don Carlos being sung in Italian, not French...... So we have to be wary if wanting to see (say) the 5-act French version which many regard as the greater work! I've tried to clarify on the Don C article the various versions and how they evolved. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Major expansion of this article - UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!

I'm in the process of a major re-working of this article using major sources. So far, it's more-or-less up to the section where he begins his composing career.

More will follow, but there will be delays during October during and limited access to sources. Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to exapnding the article. Another upload soon.... Viva-Verdi (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Article expanded up to end of "Early period" - 1849 - with more work in progress for the "Middle period" works. Viva-Verdi (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow!!! Thank you so much for doing this ... I await the rest of article with bated breath! Scarabocchio (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Now complete up to the end of the "Middle Period" (1859), and work beginning on the "Late Period". Watch for updates. Viva-Verdi (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
On a very wide screen, the images were flowing upwards and bunching at the top of the article, so I've added calls to {{clear}} at the end of each section and subsection so that all text and images are blocked together. The following (sub)section will only start after all the pictures AND all of the text are displayed. If there are a lot of pictures, it is possible that some white space will appear at the end of the text, but on the positive side, every picture will now be close to its associated text. Scarabocchio (talk) 14:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, Scarabocchio. I've added a lot of images to this article to give it some visual interest, but hadn't figured out a way of dealing with image movement and spacing. Let's hope some bot doesn't come along and sweep away all the "clear" additions in the interest of spacing. We'll see... Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

As of today, updates to the article have now reached the 1860s and we're ploughing forward towards Don Carlos for Paris...... Everything below 1867 is the original material and will be revised as is appropriate. Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

...onwards...

Editors may have noticed that I am undertaking a major reconstruction of the article, based on the rich foundations laid by the late Viva-Verdi, and also material from his sandbox. My approach inevitably is different from his. In seeking to prepare the article for GA status, I have taken out much detail relating to the individual works, which I feel belongs to their own articles (which I appreciate also need update and revision). I have also stepped away from attempting a 'blow-by-blow' coverage of his life, and changed/set aside some of the images, so that the reader can (I hope) get a clearer picture of the central issues, events and personalities. At present I am trying to round off the 'life' section and will then move on to personality, music , and reception history. I will leave the lead section until last.--Smerus (talk) 12:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's progressing very well. The life section seems to be almost complete (although his last few years need to be addressed in more detail). I'm interested to see how you handle the music as I have the same problem with Sibelius. Are you going to address current productions, e.g. the annual Verona presentations of Aida, etc.? And what about radio/tv?--Ipigott (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, those are the questions! I've scarcely begun to consider them yet.....Current/recent productions and coverage go into a section of 'reputation and legacy'. Verona certainly, and certain highlights I think like the Miller Rigoletto, the Requiem at Diana's memorial service, etc. As regards music this will be limited to an overview of development of style across the four main periods, rather than any analysis of individual works (which I believe belong in the articles on the works themselves). Although I love Verdi's works, I am by no means a Verdi 'specialist', and am learning a lot as I go along. It's all on the back of Viva-Verdi's work on the article; my perspective is not his, but I am hoping to bring the article to a worthy status in his name.--Smerus (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the Life is more or less complete now, but welcome any comments.--Smerus (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can see you've made significant progress on this. After driving 951 km (591 mi) (LOL) from Britanny today, I'll leave any further interventions until tomrorrow--Ipigott (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
You got past Calais, then.--Smerus (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

OK I've now created a full(ish) version of the article but am feeling brain-dead. Please look and comment - is it now appropriate to go for peer review - or even for GA review?--Smerus (talk) 10:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

See WT:OPERA for a list of the reference errors. I fixed as many as I could. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Following Adam's lead I believe I have now cleared all these up.--Smerus (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Smerus: Few more:
  • Ref. 13. Parker 1988a Possibly 1998a?
  • Ref 20 (a & b) Budden 1973, (no obvious link)
  • Ref 171: Parker 1988a again.
  • There's also a few bits where you've spelt "Rosselli" as " Roselli" but those I can fix, and will. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I will see to these. Adam, as regards pix we should use upright= rather than px for Ga articles, as this allow for different size viewing screens. Also many of the pix can be reduced as appropriate to prevent overlapping sections or squeezing text between them (or because they are not that important to appear large, e.g. Provesi).
While upright CAN be good, the variety of widths it explicitly encourages is often messy. Plus it defaults to fairly small, and using factors like .6 makes them even smaller... Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I've put everything but the lead to upright=1 - the number of changes from this should be very few - it makes the page look really untidy if it's full of too many varying-sized, tiny images. We might want to expand some very wide, and shrink some very tall images, but a little care will keep the page looking tidy. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
well, I've fiddled about a bit more to revert these, as the images were now seriously disrupting the text ...I suggest we ask editors to comment on this at GA review...And I've fixed the further references you note, as well as reviewing a couple of the others.--Smerus (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
As you see I've now gone for the review, let's see what happens.....--Smerus (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, GAs never cover points like that. Image size isn't a consideration. I just wish you wouldn't go well under the .75 default for upright without a lot of cause - those tall thin images, sure, but you often go below 1 even on images wider than they are tall, which misses the whole point of allowing images to scale with people's settings in the first place. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(ec) FWIW, I like the article better when most of its images are scaled between .5 and .6 (note that |upright equals |upright=0.75, and |upright=1 is equal to omitting "upright") – IMO even the lead image should be |upright, not |upright=1.2. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Michael Bednarek: the help for upright suggests making the lead image "up to 1.3". Also, if you like images smaller, you can change your preferences to make them smaller, but if we force them to too small with default sizes, it looks terrible on widescreen monitors, which are getting more and more common. Ideally, we'd be able to use percentages; until that happens, though... How about a compromise: 1 for anything landscape (default thumb), .75 for tall (default upright)? This gives a consistency to the article that people will notice and makes things look professional. I've tried this, and think it will satisfy us both? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Tried this: It now uses 3 image sizes: 1 (default thumb) for landscape and lead image, .75 (default upright) for portrait images (except lead), and .95 for that square image that didn't look right with either option. I could see adding a .7 or .65 for Stolz, but would rather have as few widths as possible: it gives a sense of consistency, which is probably more valuable than excessive fine-tuning. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By the way: All references now work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Giuseppe Verdi/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Giuseppe Verdi/archive1. Many items have not been fixed. Errabee 12:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 14:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Right, left, left, right, right, right, gallery, left, right, right, left, right...

What's the logic to the left/right pattern of the images? As I see it, we should standardise to either:

  1. Everything right
  2. Or right-left-right, resetting to right if there hasn't been images for a while.
  3. Faces face towards text, otherwise, right except where crowding of images need a left.

It's generally a bad idea to over-favour images on the left, as it's at odds with other articles.

The gallery of librettists isn't bad per se, but I have no idea why it's where it is. The article is not currently in danger of becoming too over-illustrated, so perhaps we could pull them out and put them roughly at the first reference to each librettist and see how that looks? Worst case scenario we'd need to move around the Verdi illustrations a bit, or remove a marginal image or two. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've broken up the gallery, and it's starting to make a little more sense, but I'm not happy with the image logjam in "The Galley Years". Thinking of reluctantly dropping Strepponi. Think we could do a bit more with captions, frankly, you'll see if you look at the Piave, Cammarano, or Risorgimento! images. Downside is we might need to cite them, but that should be trivial if we're asked to do so. I made some changes in the process, mainly dropping a couple of the less important images. (Antonio Barezzi (a bit of a shame), Antonio Ghislanzoni (not such a shame: image was terrible and he's arguably the least important of the five or so librettists) and the first of the two Boito images (redundant). This is in order to keep from having too many for any one period. Adam Cuerden (talk)

You cannot drop Strepponi, she is the most important person in Verdi's later life, bar none!! If you had the picture of only one person apart from GV it should be her. As to order - I propose faces facing inwards and right-left-right wherever possible unless the face direction looks very wrong. No overalpping of text sections by pix if possible.--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Image review

This list should not be used against this article passing GA; this is a pre-FA commentary by a person who's a trusted image reviewer for FAC. It's intended to pre-check for issues which, while not a problem at GA, will be a problem at FAC. No unfixable problems were found.


This is a FA-style image review, so we can start replacing anything problematic to the very, very strict FA rules. If I find an easy solution, I'll just implement it, though, for obvious reasons. Also, for each image not by a Wikipedian, I'm going to do a reverse google search, and see if a larger copy pops up. This doesn't mean I'll necessarily use it: For example, [3] is obviously massively upscaled, and wouldn't help us much.

I'll point out up front: these are a little frustrating to do at the best of times, and the Verdi images appear not to have been curated very well. I probably will express frustration occasionally. Don't take it personally.

Helpful note: Commons requires images to be out of copyright/free licensed both in the US and the country they were created in. For most of these images, U.S. copyright status is in very little doubt (there's a blanket rule that published pre-1923 means it's out of copyright in the U.S) However, Italy, the other country of interest, uses life of the creator + 70 years. That could be an issue in some cases where we can't prove the author died by 1944 - Commons uses a fairly strict standard, and, particularly for images from the later part of Verdi's life, that means we need documentation, which is weak in a lot of these images. Also, poor documentation reduces the encyclopedic value of an image, so it's worth it anyway.

he died 1895. See Melchiorre Delfico (caricaturist).--Smerus (talk) 08:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Side note: upright=0.6 is way too small. Please use default upright sizes, this looks terrible. I would oppose on FA for non-default tiny sizes. That part applies to all images that are below default upright or default thumb sizes, as appropriate to orientation. The point of setting sizes is not to substitute for shrinking them in your personal preferences.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Very many thanks for this Adam. Upright =1 results in a lot of text sandwiching and overlapping of sections on my screen. But let's see what others think. Anyway if we do go to FA there will be more text......--Smerus (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
These images are far too small ... the window width I had set as I arrived on this page gives me 250mm of article text. The images for the Barezzi are just 3cm wide (a little over one inch 'in old money'), with Antonio Barezzi's face at 6mm wide (1/4") and Margherita Barezzi a little smaller at 5mm. In both cases, the complete head is easily hidden behind the tip of my little finger when laid on the screen. (Am I giving the impression that I think they are too small? :-) Scarabocchio (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
No, but I do get the feeling that they are a bit small for you.--Smerus (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering why there were so many tiny images in this article. I think my postage stamps are actually bigger than some of these portraits. It feels like a sea of text with the occasional colorful dot.
Image sizes should normally be left alone. The plain old default is generally best, and the upright=1 trick works fine to identify vertical images. Beyond that, if they're too big for your particular combination of screen size and font size, then please go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and change your thumbnail size, without affecting everyone else (e.g., people with limited vision or with very high pixel density).
As a side note, if you want to show people the "sandwiching" that you're seeing, then you could upload Wikipedia:Screenshots of Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Er, I think I've finally got the message. All images now at default. Thanks to all for patience.--Smerus (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Giuseppe Verdi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 22:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


Starting first read-through. More in the next day or so. Tim riley talk 22:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Plainly meets all the GA criteria and is, in my view, in the region of FA standard. A few suggestions you might like to consider (no obligation):

  • However
    • You overuse (in my view) the word "however", which occurs 17 times, and in most cases could be dispensed with without damaging the prose, and indeed, in my view, improving it. Mostly annihilated
  • Date ranges, passim
    • The MoS would have us write " the 1842–43 season" and not "the 1842/43 season" Done
  • Quotation marks
    • I'm not sure of your rationale for when to use single quotes and when double. I think the MoS would have us use doubles throughout as the norm.
  • Duplicate blue links:  Done
    • I due Foscari
    • La Fenice
    • Victor Hugo
    • Luisa Miller
    • Un ballo in maschera
    • Giacomo Meyerbeer
    • Gioachino Rossini
    • Friedrich Schiller
    • Tannhäuser
    • Aria
    • Grand opera
    • Otello
    • Aida
    • Richard Wagner
    • Verismo
    • Milan Conservatory
    • Italian unification
I've got all of these but Un ballo in maschera - That has a caption link, and a text link, which I think is the only reasonable way to do it, as you can't know which they'll read first. I also could not find a double link for "aria" or "Milan Conservatory". I've left "Italian unification", because it's two very different terms, and both kind of are called for in the context. I'd be inclined to relink if it's been several pages, so I might suggest restoring Schiller and Tannhäuser, and maybe "grand opera" Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 1842–49: the "Galley Years" begin All done but one, see comment below.
    • There is a stray closing square bracket in the fourth para.
    • "later conducting the premieres of many of his works in their premiere performances in the USA" – too many premieres
    • "It is the only one of Verdi's operas of his "early period" to remain regularly in the international repertoire" – excluding Nabucco, presumably? For the period 25 July 2013 to 25 July 2015 Operabase lists 514 performances of Nabucco to 264 of Macbeth.
    • "which transpired within days of La battaglia di Legnano" – "transpire" means to become known"; the OED labels it a misuse when used as a synonym of "to occur, happen, or take place".
  • 1849–53: Fame
    • "Subsequent productions (following some rewriting) throughout Europe over the following two years however fully vindicated the composer." – could do with a citation (and without a "however" in my view). Done
  • Politics
    • Did you intend all four letters of "Viva" to be in bold? This was a leftover from old article - now changed
  • 1860–1887: from La forza to Otello
    • "(in one case, embezzling), stewards" – I don't think you want the comma after the closing bracket Done
    • "but its performance was abandoned (and was not performed until 1988)" – "performance" seems to be the subject of the verb "performed" here. Done
    • Requiem or Requiem? – we have both in this section Changed to plain upright, per WP practice
  • Personality
    • [Passing remark: Rosselli comments that in the Requiem "The prospect of Hell appears to rule...[the Requiem] is troubled to the end," and offers little consolation – Roselli should have heard Colin Davis conduct the Sanctus – sheer unbounded joy.]

Those are the totality of my suggestions. Nothing to frighten the horses, and once you've adopted or rejected them we can pass on to the tape-cutting ceremony. This review has taken hours longer than I expected because, appetite whetted by your text, I had to break off to listen to numerous recordings of various bits from the operas. Most pleasurable on all counts. – Tim riley talk 17:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact most of it, many thanks!--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Everything I think done now - but:The Nabucco phenomenon -" "It is the only one of Verdi's operas of his "early period" to remain regularly in the international repertoire" – excluding Nabucco, presumably? For the period 25 July 2013 to 25 July 2015 Operabase lists 514 performances of Nabucco to 264 of Macbeth." Very interesting aspect here of changing tastes. The supporting citation is from Chusid in 1997, when Nabucco made only rare appearances. In the period 2011 -2014 its status rose considerably due to 150 years of Italian unification and Verdi bicentenary. But as an opera it's not that great and I should be very surprised if it maintained this recent prominence. Query: how to express this in article? I have attempted a solution which avoids WP:OR.--Smerus (talk) 10:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

That's just the job, I'd say. All else is fine, too. Stand back and give me room to wield the gold scissors:

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I assume – by God, I hope! – this article is just making a pitstop at GAN on its way to peer review and FAC. Please ping me when at either. It will be a privilege and pleasure to participate. – Tim riley talk 11:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. I need to think deeply about peer review/FA but will advise you. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Week of stroke

Notice that the day of the stroke that Verdi suffered, 1901-01-21, is a Monday, and the day of his death is the following Sunday. So the statement He gradually grew more feeble over the next week should be corrected. Icek~enwiki (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Coda section

Why is there a "coda" section with just one quote? What does "coda" mean in this context? The quote needs an introduction & context, or it should just be removed.

X7 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Xist... it is such a ridiculous, antithetical, cheap, and transparent attempt to prop-up what someone desperately felt the need to prop-up.

'Tis Was (for those of you that want to get a laugh at the silly charade of a section): "Coda Noble, simple, with a degree of unbroken vitality and vast natural power of creation and organization, Verdi is the voice of a world that is no more. His enormous popularity among the most sophisticated as well as the most ordinary listeners today is due to the fact that he expressed permanent states of consciousness in the most direct terms: as Homer, Shakespeare, Ibsen, and Tolstoy have done... After Verdi this is not heard in music again. — Isaiah Berlin (1979)[214]"

'Tis Fucking Deleted.

Debate on operas being political section

Is this section even necessary? I just went through and then realized that there is a "politics" section that is also in the entry. While the section does add some new information by stating how modern historians view Verdi's works, I think the politics section is just much better organized and better written.

X7 (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

we need two sections. the first briefly mentions how Verdi's associates wanted political operas at the time. The second much longer summarizes a major 20th - 21st century debate among scholars about the entire political impact. Rjensen (talk) 07:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The article had an infobox from 5 March 2016. It seems useful to me, if only for clarifying the birthday problem and providing access to his list of works, but was removed in July 2017. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Giuseppe Verdi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Aida

The article currently includes the unsourced passage: "Aida marks a return to earlier days in many ways. The plot as in the first operas centers on love and heroism; the music is relatively 'four-square' and oriented to sensation and spectacle".

Besides being unsourced, this comment about the music seems dead-wrong to me. I am currently preparing to perform in Aida and to me the music seems like a brain-teaser, combining deceptively easy-sounding, appealing melodies like the choral number "Gloria all'Egitto, ad Iside" with the very counter-intuitive quasi-fugal chorus of priests in one section of the Act 2 Grand Finale which begins with the basses singing "Della vittoria agl'arbitri supremi", and with weird modulations of key in other parts of the ensemble; also some of the music in the Grand Invocation of the Goddess Ftha is very bewildering. The opera only sounds "four-square" if you ignore the parts which don't.

Anyway, I'm not putting any of these comments into the article, as they are only my opinions, but I am tagging the above-quoted phrase as OR. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinions. Your approach could be to remove, or you know fix it. Tagging is, well. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
"Tagging it is, well" WHAT? I thought tagging was the wiki-approved way to deal with suspected OR. Am I wrong? Please advise, masters of the Wikiverse. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase, and suggest to remove it. When Aida was performed in Frankfurt during the Gielen era, the conductor pointed out that much in the triumph marching can be heard as plain irony, such as the repetitive trumpet note. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm no master of the anything, and you two know much more on this subject than I ever will. Just meant it should prob have been zapped on sight (tagging sometimes bothers me). Done now Gerda and HandsomeMrToad. It was a good spot. Ceoil (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Verdi's pianos

I have reverted a paragraph on pianos played by Verdi, as being WP:UNDUE. His playing was not WP:NOTABLE, he did not write music for the piano, and there is nothing special about any of the instruments he is known to have played.--Smerus (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and pic formatting

Background: This article was promoted to GA in 2015. In 2016, an infobox with the basic dates about birth and death was added (not by me). It was removed in 2017. See above, #Infobox. No discussion happened then. Today, I restored that infobox because no objections had come up. That was reverted claiming GA status. I believe that this short infobox would help preventing discussions about birth date and nationality, and supply a link to the works. - Changes to images were also reverted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Background: This article was promoted to GA in 2015. In 2016, an infobox was added (without discussion) which included basic dates about birth and death (already covered in the first line of the lead section). It was removed in 2017, per WP:BRD. Three years on, and with a "silent consensus" in place not to include one, here you are desperately blowing on the embers as you cannot accept "no infobox" as an answer. But as you always (fraudulently) maintain, you try not to talk about infoboxes, don't you. CassiantoTalk 18:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that the protocols are quite clearly understood by all here; infoboxes are not to be added without discussion on talk page. If this is such a discussion, my vote is against.--Smerus (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Beard in Legacy

There is a beard style named after Giuseppe Verdi, that I think should be put in his legacy section. Here are some sources for editors to check: https://www.beardresource.com/verdi-beard/ https://razors.co/beard-styles/verdi-beard/ https://heritageclubbarbershop.com/the-verdi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_facial_hairstyles#Full-beard_styles https://bespokeunit.com/grooming/beards/full/#verdi Dark Lord Thomas Pie (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Verdi conducting Aida in Paris 1880 - Gallica - Restoration.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 10, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-10-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Giuseppe Verdi

Giuseppe Verdi (1813–1901) was an Italian composer best known for his operas. He came to dominate the Italian opera scene after the era of Gioachino Rossini, Gaetano Donizetti and Vincenzo Bellini, whose works significantly influenced him. He is depicted here conducting the orchestra of the Paris Opera premiere of Aida (sung in French) at the Palais Garnier on 22 March 1880. The illustration was published in the 3 April 1880 edition of Le Monde illustré.

Illustration credit: Adrien Marie; restored by Adam Cuerden

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Giuseppe_Verdi/Archive_1&oldid=1240507788"