Wikipedia:Peer review/Claudio Monteverdi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Claudio Monteverdi[edit]

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because as a level 4 vital article I felt its original state was unacceptable. Monteverdi is one of the true greats of European classical music; anong other claims to fame, he is a key transition figure between music of the Renaissance and of the Baroque, and one of the founders of the opera tradition. User:Brianboulton kindly undertook to join me in undertaking a rewrite. Now we would both like to get the views of other editors - have we got the right balance, have we missed things out, are we within sight of a GA, etc.? All and any constructive opinions would be very welcome.

Thanks, Smerus (talk) 16:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim Riley[edit]

Just looking in – Proverbs 26:11, you know. I've done a quick reading for typos and made a few amendments thereof. More from me after a close reading of the text. Meanwhile, the OED doesn't know the word 'salutory'. You may possibly want 'salutatory', though I don't know that that is in common use. Back anon. Tim riley talk 16:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least Ecclesiastes 9:4. 'Salutary' could be a healthy alternative? Can't find it in the article though. Found it and replaced with 'opening'. --Smerus (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed comments. Leaving Lead till last, more meo. First batch, to end of Life sections.

  • Background: nationality and culture
    • Opening sentences: though I don't quarrel with a word of them, I just observe that we don't go into the Germanness of Bach, Beethoven or the Italianness of Donizetti, Rossini, etc in their articles. Point taken about the politics of Monteverdi's day, but I think a little trimming might be beneficial.
  • Cremona 1567–1590/91
    • Sub-heading: could you trim it to Cremona 1567–1591 without distorting the facts? Tidier that way if so.
    • Baptized – perfectly proper spelling, but as we have 'characterised' later I think consistency of -izing or -ising would be dezirable.
    • There is no clear record of Monteverdi's early musical training, or evidence that he was (as is sometimes claimed) a member of the Cathedral choir or studied at Cremona University – who claims it and what authority is there for dimissing it?
  • Court musician
    • they were to have ...Cesare was to join – this construction should, I think, be used sparingly, if at all.
    • and which depart from... – I can't find a plural noun in this long sentence to which this plural verb could be applied. I think you want 'departs'.
  • Artusi controversy and seconda pratica
    • The contemporary music historian Massimo Ossi – I'd be cautious about 'contemporary': a careful reading shows that you mean contemporary with us rather than with Monteverdi, but a plain '20th-' or '21st-century' would be clearer.
    • Monteverdi's ongoing development – do you need the 'ongoing' here?
  • Opera, conflict and departure
    • save for Ariadne's Lament – Fowler is a bit severe on 'save' used to mean 'except', and I respectfully agree with him.
  • Maturity: 1613–1630
    • prioritize – another for -ize -ise consideration
    • save for Tirsi e Clor – more saving
    • the duchess Caterina – we have capitalised titles earlier and should, I think, do so here, particularly as she gets her D later in the sentence.
    • succeeded to the Duchy – succeeded to the dukedom? I merely ask.
    • due to the latter's illness – old codger's pedantry: younger editors will no doubt pooh-pooh this, but I was brung up to think 'due to' is an adjective and can modify only pronouns and nouns: I think you want 'owing to to' or even better 'because of' here.
    • He acted on behalf of Paolo Giordano – who is 'he' – Claudio or Cosimo? Could be either, as drawn.
    • Last para of section: you want en-dashes, not hyphens, for your parentheses. Other examples of this later, too.
    • And he was also subject – I agree with Fowler that is a superstition to think one can't start a sentence with And or But, but I don't think you need the And here.
    • so he moved him to Bologna University – old codger time again: I don't reckon 'so; is a conjunction.
  • Pause: 1630–1637
    • The plague was ironically carried – 'ironically' is pure editorialising.
  • Late flowering: 1637–1643
    • Date ranges: I believe the MOS has changed its rules on date ranges since my day, but whatever they are I don't suppose the contrasting forms 1640−41 and 1637−8 belong in the same paragraph.

That's all for now. More soonest. – Tim riley talk 20:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for this. I have now dealt with these points as appropriate (I think). In particular, the 'Background' para contents I have to some extent relocated in 'Cremona 1567-91' and in a note. As regards "Who claims it and what authority is there for dismissing it?" - this is covered in the citations at the end of the paragraph; otherwise the same refs would be reappearing at phrase and sentence ends, which would have looked very choppy. The para is compounded of information from all the sources cited. I await phase II.--Smerus (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch of comments from Tim:

  • Background: Renaissance to Baroque
    • Lewis Lockwood is linked and given both his names in two successive paras.
  • Madrigals 1590-1605: Books 3, 4, 5
    • Palisca quotes ... a typical example of the young composer's developing powers of invention – does Palisca really refer to Monteverdi as 'young' at this point? Though early thirties seems young to me (eheu, fugaces!), I doubt if it was seen as such at the turn of the 17th century.
  • Palisca doesn't use "young" The madrigal in question, although published in 1603, was written some time before 1600 – which could mean any time after 1592 when the Third Book was published; Monteverdi was 25 then. So youngish, by your/my geriatric standards. But I've removed the word as unnecessary. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • L'Arianna
    • Not sure we need the quotes round "Prelude" for Tristan.
  • Eighth book
    • 'insinuated' doesn't feel quite right to me. Perhaps 'implied'?
  • Historical perspective
    • The fourth paragraph is immediately repeated, almost verbatim, as the fifth para.
  • Lead
    • No comments except that 'madrigal' is blue-linked twice.
  • Repeated blue links in text:
    • madrigal
    • smallpox
  • References
    • At end of Cremona section, refs 7, 9 and 3 are not in numerical order.
    • In Maturity: 1613–1630 section, second para, refs 33, 28 and 36 ditto.
    • Late operas and final works: end of second para, 113 and 31 ditto, and 114 and 31 in the next para.
    • The mentions of 'Roote, Deane' chez Grove seem to me gratuitous. If you click on the Cite button from within the Grove website the prescribed detailed forms of citation (Chicago, MLA) make no mention of him.
  • ISBNs: I don't know how fussy people are at FAC these days, but when I last tangled with it I had to put all my ISBNs into the 13-digit form: at present we have a mixture of 10- and 13-digits styles. Aid is at hand here, if wanted.

That's all from me. This article seems to me to be miles ahead of GA status, and is, in my view, ready to go to FAC, though I don't doubt the present review will furnish you with some further improvements in advance of that. – Tim riley talk 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've attended to all the minor fixes arising from the second part of your comments, including the tiresome ibsn conversions which seem to excite some of our less imaginative brethren. Many thanks for your comments and kind words. I made my contribution to the article with FA in mind, and I expect it'll end up there by one route or another. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scarabocchio[edit]

(The parcels of time that I can dedicate to this are very erratic, so I am going to do a very rough brain dump here thus committing myself to clean it up over the next 24 hours. Consider this to be an advance notice of tomorrow's post).

I like structure and syntheses. When I start to look at a subject, I want to know the general environment .. both in the specific area of interest and the wider context.

Claudio Monteverdi (1567-1643) .. a contemporary of the Counter-Reformation -- end of the Council of Trent to just before the Peace of Westphalia. From the CM article: change in dedications from Italians to Hapsburgs

Monteverdi: 'creator' of the artform of opera. Quote from the CM article: "Monteverdi is to be credited for the rebirth of theatrical music" (my emphasis added). Follows developments/ thoughts of the Camerata de' Bardi in rediscovering/ recreating the Greek theatre. Baldassare Castiglione and Il Cortegiano (1528): argues against polyphony and praises the accompagnied human voice (it:recitar cantando .. a phrase used in the frontispiece of Emilio de' Cavalieri's 1600 rappresentazione). Princely courts as centres of artistic excellence. The concerto delle donne (1580-97). CM perhaps wrote a Canzonette a tre voci for them.

Monteverdi (1567-1643): close contemporary of Carlo Gesualdo (1566-1613). The competing approaches of Gesualdo and Monteverdi complemented each other, leaving the madrigal form no room for development. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo#Entre_Renaissance_et_Baroque

Growing importance of the text. All of the WP articles of the composers of this period feature the importance of the texts set. The presence of the poet at the same court a factor? Torquato Tasso (1544-1595)

Where are Jacopo Peri? Giulio Caccini (1551-1618)? etc etc etc?

Scarabocchio (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many interesting ideas here - but some of them are I think going to be outside the scope of this article - may be more approriate in Opera, Italian opera, etc.....Re Gesualdo/Monteverdi, do you have any English-language sources which could be relevant here? - the refs in Fr Wikipedia Gesualdo don't appear too helpful. Thanks, Smerus (talk) 07:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scarabocchio, I have added a reference to Gesualdo in the section on the 4th Book of Madrigals. Smerus (talk) 10:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My immediate reaction to the article when you first released it for review was to be impressed at the improvement (congratulations). The second was the impression of Monteverdi being presented as standing alone, with little on his antecedents or his contemporaries. There's a key phrase in the Adriano Banchieri article, where the madrigal comedy is described as "part of a general interest in Italy at the time in creating musico-dramatic forms." The second half of the 16th century was in a ferment, with theoretical and practical experiments in musical and dramatic development. They may not all have an absolute and direct influence on Monteverdi, but it seems to me that something would be missing if they were not referenced.
(1) Madrigal comedy The first collection of madrigals, sung as a set and telling a coherent (and highly comic) story, was Il cicalamento delle donne al bucato (the gossip of wives in the laundry), by Alessandro Striggio (the father, not the librettist), which was written in 1567. Later madrigal comedies are sometimes divided into acts, including a prologue, and while not "acted" in the sense of an opera, they may have been performed on stage with elaborate painted backdrops (for example, there is an existing woodcut (1597) showing the prologue of Orazio Vecchi's L'Amfiparnaso (1594): a singer is evidently in costume in a backdrop showing a city street). http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-vecchi-orazio-tiberio-6121550-1921605-italian-composer-works-prologo-18839165.html Scarabocchio (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Florentine intermedio (to ~1608) Notable peak: 1589. Diffusion of the proscenium arch.
(3) Camerata de' Bardi (1573-82+) Scarabocchio (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, you are right ... this stuff will be better elsewhere. The more I hunt around the subject the more that I find networks of patrons, performers, composers, poets; close relationships, lots of interactions giving the possibility of cross-fertilisation, and yet the name of Monteverdi is always missing. Misterioso. I'll leave this for now. Scarabocchio (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

First part of my bit, perhaps not as learned as some, but I offer it for what it's worth:

  • "Above them were the imperial powers – in the sixteenth century primarily Spain – and also the higher authority of the Habsburgs of Vienna.[1]" Slightly ambiguous as it might be read to say that the Habsburgs were superior to Spain. I would recast slightly.
  • Well, that's about the size of it. For pretty well all of the 16th and 17th centuries, the Spanish throne was "owned" by the Habsburgs. Throughout this period Spain's kings were members of the Habsburg family; the Spanish kingdom was a member-state of the Holy Roman empire, so I think that the present wording reflects the reality of the time. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Butting in) To the best of my knowledge, Spain was never part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Habsburg Charles V was Holy Roman Emperor, but he ruled Spain as King Charles I. After his abdication(s), one branch of the Habsburgs ruled the Holy Roman Empire (i.e. Austria, Germany etc.), the other ruled the Spanish domains (modern Spain, the Spanish empire in the Americas, the Low Countries, Naples etc.). --Folantin (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, it's pretty dubious to say the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs was more powerful than Spain during this period. Spain was arguably the dominant power in Europe until the Battle of Rocroi in 1643, the year of Monteverdi's death, when the France of Louis XIV began to take over that role. More importantly for this article, Spain was certainly the dominant foreign power in Italy in Monteverdi's day. --Folantin (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I suggest simply "the authority of the Habsburgs of Vienna" (omitting 'higher'). The Vienna Habsburgs were clearly influential in Northern Italy, and debate about them vs. the Spanish branch is outside the context of this article. What's important here is that the powers of both Spain and Austria had their effects on CM's life and career. -- Smerus (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've amended the text in the light of the above – see what you think. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd simplify it further. "Religious authority" was the province of the Pope rather than the HRE. The Empire tended to use brute military force to get its way in Italy, most notoriously during the Sack of Rome in 1527. So maybe, "Above them were the Habsburg imperial powers of Spain and the Holy Roman Empire [possibly add: both of which exerted considerable political influence in Italy during this period]." --Folantin (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Monteverdi's first publications also give evidence of his connections, even in his early years, beyond Cremona." I might move "beyond Cremona" to after "connections".
  • "was dedicated to the President of the Senate of Milan, Giacomo Ricardi, for whom he had played the viola da braccio in Milan in 1587.[7][9][3]" "in Milan" can likely be dropped as trivial and possibly implied. Also note refs out of order.
  • "The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi, attacked Monteverdi's music " possibly the comma might be better after "theorist"
  • "It was given two performances February and March 1607;" something amiss.
  • " The satisfaction of the Procurators of San Marco, to whom Monteverdi was directly responsible, with his work resulted in his annual salary being raised in 1616 from 300 ducats to 400.[33]" I don't really like where you've put the comma, after Marco. Possibly recast entirely, such as "Monteverdi's work satisfied the Procurators of San Marco, who whom he was directly responsible, so much so that his annual salary was raised in 1616 from 300 ducats to 400." or some such.
  • " his position as Cardinal" Is Cardinal, of itself, a position?
  • "the composer received a pearl necklace from the Duchess.[33][28][36] " ref order
  • "In 1627 Monteverdi received a major commission from the Odoardo Farnese, Duke of Parma, for a series of works, " the "the" is likely extraneous.
  • "who may have sought to revive attempts to lure Monteverdi to Warsaw." you had not mentioned this. Just pointing it out, not sure if anything needs doing.
  • "stimulated the city's musical life" I might say what city. Cremona was recently discussed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I agree with most (if not quite all) of these comments and have made changes accordingly. Smerus (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming, sorry for delay. Taking up the musical sections, not much to add.
  • "How much he composed in this period is a matter of conjecture; his range of duties in the Mantuan court may have limited his opportunities." a fine point, but as it wasn't the variety but the quantity, I would cut "range of"
  • "Throughout the lament indignation and anger are punctuated by tenderness, until a descending line brings the lament to a quiet conclusion" I might avoid the repetition by deleting the first "the lament" and inserting a comma.
  • "while the Sonata sopra had been anticipated by Archangelo Crotti, in his Sancta Maria published in 1608" I might omit the comma.
I must say, this is quite the magnum opus you've put together. Excellently done. Looking forward to the opportunity to support at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These minor fixes all done. Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Schrocat[edit]

Cremona
  • "Tim Carter deduces..." Maybe "Tim Carter, the musicologist, deduces..." would be a better introduction? It would avoid people adding [who?] at a later date
Mantua
  • Part of me wants to know the difference, even by way of footnote, between a viola da gamba and a viola da braccio; indeed the bracketed part could join the difference in the footnote to make the prose flow a little easier. (The other part of me was reeling as I misread the previous sentence to think that Monty played the vuvuzela, which may explain much.)
Late flowering
  • In the title you have "1637–1643", but below you have "1640–41" and 1637−8". Consistency should be key, but I think there was an RfC that says the "1637–1643" format is broadly the right one to aim for.

Done to the top of the "Music" section, although from the opening paragraph of that section, I'm sure there should be a hyphen somewhere in "mid 15th century". More generally, you have page ranges in two formats: 123–24 and 123–124. Both are OK, but you should be consistent.

I've standardised the page range formats (I think). Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Books 3, 4 and 5
  • "Madrigals 1590–1605: Books 3, 4, 5" and other sub-titles: I'm not sure it should be capital B, as these are not the titles of the published works
  • I've changed all the "book" capitals, and those of the cardinals that go with them, so we now have "first book", "second book" etc throughout. This is contrary to the format many sources adopt, but is I think justifiable provided it's applied consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Palisca quotes the madrigal Ohime ..." I'm not sure what the ellipsis is there for. Is it part of the title of the madrigal?
  • Yes, the ellipsis was simply to indicate that this is not the madrigal's full title. But, since Monteverdi wrote several madrigals beginning with "Ohime", I've removed the ellipsis and put in the full title Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vespers
  • Hmmm, I'm not sure. I've rather changed my mind on this one. Most of the experts cited in the article might be considered as "musicologists", and it would surely make for tedious reading if we have to describe each one as such. Where we have a wikilink, I don't think we're in danger of a "who?" tag, though in the absence of such a link I agree with you (see, for example, "The critic Andrew Clements...") Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seventh book
  • "six of the pieces in the Book": 'Book' isn't the title and should be in lower case.
  • I also see a consistency problem with the titles and text as you have in both "Sixth Book", "Seventh book", etc. The differing caps for "B/book" are throughout this second part of the article
Eighth book
  • ' "a statement of artistic principles and compositional authority in which Monteverdi " shaped and expanded the madrigal form to accommodate what he wanted to do ... the pieces collected in Book Eight make up a treasury of what music in the first half the 17th century could possibly express."' There are three quote marks here: I presume the one in the middle is the errant one, nit not sure.
  • There is also a caps question on "Eighth Book" and "eighth book"

Down to "Other Venice music"; will finish tomorrow morning. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And finishing...

Other Venice music
  • She's not commenting in her capacity as a composer, so the description is a bit off-beam. As mentioned above, we have the link. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Late operas and final works
  • Minor overlinking with L'incoronazione di Poppea, but the first one was so far up the page it doesn't matter. What I do wonder is why the translation appears here and not at the first mention (in the "Late flowering: 1637–1643" section) where others titles are translated.
  • Three "However"s open sentences and there are a few US colons to open quotes – it may be worth just checking that they are needed there.
  • Is three "howevers" in an 8,000-word article excessive? I know some editors would favour a total ban on the word, but I think sparing use is OK – although if anyone feels strongly enough to tweak the text I am unlikely to object. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Historical perspective
  • The last lines are a long quote from Chew: they should be shown as a block quote, rather than inline.
  • I've a bit of an aversion to blockquotes. I'll think about this; one possibility is to paraphrase some of Chew's comment and reduce the verbatim element to the MoS-approved 40-word limit for inline citations. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I think I probably know more about Mantovani than Monteverdi, so this is a prose review only, and I haven't looked at whether the content covers all the salient points of the man or his work. Please drop me a note if you intend t take this to FAC, and I'll have another read through then. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most grateful for the trouble you've taken to read through the article and for the many positive suggestions, mostly implemented. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you, Smerus and Brianboulton, for undertaking this, supporting all his major operas and the lost ones, all featured articles. I wrote Selva morale e spirituale long ago, and recently saw a hilarious production of Orpheus (yes, in German, the KOB is like the ENO).

Lead

  • I am usually told to link uncommon terms in the lead, and while I know "secular and church music", readers may not. Our article for church music is rather awful, unfortunately.
  • "Much of Monteverdi's output, including many dramatic and stage works, has been lost." - I confess to not be happy with the singular/plural although correct, and how would you define the difference of dramatic and stage works?
I believe these formulations are OK for the general reader, but will cut "dramatic and" which as you rightly point out is repetitious.--Smerus (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "Roman Catholic faith" - link? - our article is Catholic church, unless going to a history section, - perhaps drop "Roman"?

... conflict

  • We have full titles of operas in Italian, I suggest also to name Vespro della Beata Vergine, instead of a pipe link (which is fine for the lead).

Maturity

  • "Mass" or "mass"? "Vespers service" or "vespers service"? "a Mass" looks strange to me, trained to capitalize only for a specific mass.
  • agreed for 'mass' but capital V for Vespers is OK I think. --Smerus (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to come, perhaps tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • thanks for these and future comments.--Smerus (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow didn't work, due to real life (pleasant) and here (some less pleasant). Thank you for the changes! - I just realised we have an article Transition from Renaissance to Baroque in instrumental music, and think that should be mentioned and/or linked. In the related section, the beginning of Music, I suggest to adapt more to the unprepared reader: instead of a longish sentence about the dating of Renaissance music (which reads like a "for specialists only" to me), simply repeat the line from the lead about "transitional figure", then summarize Renaissance, then Baroque. Perhaps mention pratica again, to make that connection. Just a suggestion, and no time for more details until I will have expanded this for GA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this: I don't think the article you suggest linking to is that useful. Its emphasis is very much on instruments and orchestration, rather than on musical history; it makes only a single passing mention of Monteverdi. Besides which, it is full of uncited statements, and I can't see how it can help our readers much. On your further comment, the "Background" section is written largely with the "unprepared" (probably "uninformed") reader in mind. The section broadly dates the two eras, and summarises the differences in character of the music as between them, thus providing some context to the description of Monteverdi as a transitional figure. The "informed" reader will likely already have this knowledge; and I don't see that adding more stuff is necessary at this point. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continue:

Music

  • general: when someone said something about M.'s music, consider to introduce them by saying "the Monteverdi scholar" or mention a book title. Let's not expect readers to look up the link.
  • I've discussed this point within SchroCat's review, above. Briefly, I think that the insistence on describing every authority mentioned (e.g. "the musicologist", "the scholar", "the critic", etc) makes for repetitive prose and tedious reading. The normal reader will intuit that the persons being quoted are not novelists or sports writers; the copious list of sources makes it pretty clear that they have appropriate credentials. Believe it or not, readers of these articles, unlike WP reviewers, don't as a rule check each name they come across in the text. The links are there should anyone wish to find out more about the quoted authority. But I think it's time to bid farewell to these bland appendages. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will point my reviewers to this response next time they ask me ;) - makes a lot of sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • still: translate Italian and Latin titles? (example: "Non si levav' ancor")
  • There is a valid point here, about consistency - sometimes we translate, sometimes we don't. Trouble is, there are an awful lot of Italian or Latin titles in the article, and to translate them all would I fear stultify the prose. But I'll give the matter further thought. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - I didn't even think yet of consistency, just that this Italian line tells me nothing without a translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

books 1 2

  • Imitation (music) seems not a good link for imitatio in the sense explained
  • I agree. Renaissance imitatio as described, for example, by Geoffrey Chew, is quite different from the imitation described in the linked article. I have removed the link. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

books 3-5

  • inconsistent capitalization of "book"
  • The sentence beginning "The fourth book" is missing a comma, but would probably be better rephrased, - too many clauses.

Opera ...

  • I would not call the Vespers a collection, being for one service.
  • Kurtzman calls the Vespers pieces a "collection". He is alluding to the fact that only relatively recently have the sacred concertos been accepted as substitutes for the liturgical antiphons. It is possible that they were originally composed as choral anthems which choirmasters could, says Kurtzman, "easily have extracted ... from the collection". Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L'Arianna

  • Perhaps say first that most of the opera is lost, and then go into detail about the lament?

Historical perspective

I miss a link to his lost operas. I enjoy a good read, culminating in the last section. Thank you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for these comments. I have added a "lost operas" link to the "Venice 1614–38" section, the period that covers most of the lost theatrical works. My co-author Smerus may have a view on the translations issue that you raised, and I'll wait for him om that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for delay, I've been in Belarus (a nice poncy excuse, I think). I'm luke-warm on the translation issue. Many of these works are (however undeservedly) not very well known and don't I think have 'standard' English titles by which they would be recognized by English speakers. The naming of various madrigals in the text is it seems to me mainly to enable those would like to do so to pinpoint them (as. e.g., examples of settings of Tasso or Monteverdi's use of dissonance, etc.) and translating the titles doesn't I think add to the useful information for this article. So my view in general would be don't translate unless there is a familiar 'accepted' English equivalent. Smerus (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, traveling myself (more clouds) ;) - How about removing some Italian phrases then, - such as the example one, five words that don't add to reading pleasure? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you are in the Tatras? I just got back today to my house in Levoca - I would have invited you round but I'm leaving tomorrow afternoon - still, if you you are in Levoca tomorrow morning drop by! And/or come to our music festival in September. I will have a look at the Italian phrases in the meantime.Smerus (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tempting, looks really close, and interesting! But it would be difficult with a group. Thank you anyway, I'll pass the festival information to friends who may know people interested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked again through the whole article and I personally feel the balance between translated and untranslated is appropriate. I've made some corrections in the interests of consistency, (mainly Complete works in italics and "individual components" in quote marks.) - Smerus (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Folantin[edit]

Looks like you've done a very thorough job. I have a possible suggestion for expanding the "Historical perspective" section. Perhaps you could go into more detail about how Monteverdi influenced the following generation of composers before fading into relative obscurity. I don't just mean Venetian opera composers such as Cavalli but foreigners, especially Heinrich Schütz. As far as I know, the issue of whether Schütz studied with, or even met, Monteverdi in Venice is still disputed but there is no doubt he absorbed aspects of Monteverdi's music such as stile concitato. Given Schütz is the most important German Baroque composer of the 17th century, I think he's worth at least a mention. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)I'v[reply]

There's this (The Second Venetian Visit of Heinrich Schütz JSTOR) which has useful stuff on Schutz/Monteverdi. I've added something based on this. Smerus (talk) 07:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. You can certainly hear Monteverdi's influence in, say, "Es steh Gott auf", as Schütz himself admitted. --Folantin (talk) 09:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've added something about this as well.--Smerus (talk) 09:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the English translations of the names of the operas aren't capitalised in English style, for example The coronation of Poppea rather than The Coronation of Poppea. Should this be altered? --Folantin (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(watching:) When we translate German titles to English, we differentiate: italic and title case if the English is really a title that is used, such as The Flying Dutchman, but sentence case and brackets or quotation marks if it's only a translation, to help understanding, such as the translation (sometimes several) of the beginning of a Bach cantata. I don't know which opera title here falls in one or the other category. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cremona lay under the jurisdiction of Milan, a Spanish possession, so that Monteverdi was technically born a Spanish citizen." "Citizen" sounds wrong for this era. "Spanish subject" sounds more appropriate. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source uses "citizen" throughout, and I think we should stick with that. Brianboulton (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, from what I've read elsewhere it's more common to refer to them as subjects of the King of Spain but I won't argue the toss. --Folantin (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in both of which countries Monteverdi was later to establish his career". "States" rather than "countries" sounds better to me. --Folantin (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musical literature has also defined the period that broadly followed". "Broadly" sounds wrong or out of position here. I can't quite put my finger on it. --Folantin (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed this to 'the succeeding period'- Smerus (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've finished going through it. I might have another look in the next couple of days. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look and couldn't find anything amiss. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

Brianboulton and I are very grateful to all above for comments and constructive criticism. We are now emboldened to put the article up for FA and to see what torrents that may unleash......Smerus (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Claudio_Monteverdi/archive1&oldid=1142590299"