Talk:Claudio Monteverdi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Date of Death

We had Monteverdi's death date here as November 11, but Grove Concise and other reference works give it as November 29, and I can't find any hint that the date is in question, so I've changed it. (I wouldn't normally mention a change like this on talk, but we'd had it as Nov 11 for more than a year, so I thought I'd better.) --Camembert

You are correct: every source I have lists his death date as Nov 29. He was taken ill on the 20th and died on the 29th "of malignant fever of 9 days duration" according to the obit published in the Registers of Public Health of Venice (from the biography by Denis Arnold, Monteverdi) -- Antandrus 04:48, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question re Search

When you search for "Claudio Monteverdi" the index title for this page is "Claudio Monteverde" I dont know how to change that so just letting you people know.

That's not what happens when I search: Claudio Monteverde comes up 5th in the list, Claudio Monteverdi first. The Monteverde is a redirect. Is it possible you misspelled it in the search box? Otherwise I don't see anything amiss. Antandrus (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Thats strange, earlier it was 100% relevancy. Either way, would it not be better to remove the redirect, and instead put up a "Did you mean Claudio Monteverdi"? So igorant people wont write his name wrong.

Kudos

Kudos, all of you at work here. When all of Wikipedia's composer articles are this good, it will be a very good encyclopedia indeed. --Wetman 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Srnec 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

'green mountain'?

I'd remove the line where it says that Monteverdi means "green mountain" in Italian. First of all, it is not true, because 'Verdi' is a plural where 'Monte' is a singular, therefore 'Monteverdi' doesn't mean anything as it is. One should actually go and check the origins of this surname. Second, I don't see the relevance of it either way, unless one gives a reason for this remark in the rest of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Corpodibacco (talk • contribs) 10:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Yah, I agree. It's gone. Antandrus (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a latin genitive: monteverdi -> "green mountain's", like montecuccoli -> "of(from) Montecuccolo".84.222.236.233 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arianna

I miss some information on the lost opera's of Monteverdi, most notably Arianna. One piece of it has survived "Lamento d'Arianna", which was during his lifetime one of his most popular pieces, surviving both in a monodic form and as a Madrigal. To call the Ulysses and Poppea the high points of his operatic works seems not quite correct, since we have incomplete knowledge of his works. As far as popularity goes the Arianne may have been one of his greatest successes. Perhaps someone can make a more detailed study of Arianna, and add it to the main text.

JV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.244.80 (talk • contribs)

Makes sense. I'll see what I can do. You are also welcome to add/rearrange the material as you see fit. Cheers, Mak (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

WPBio Template "needs infobox" parameter

Shortly after I added the fuller template with the "needs infobox" parameter set to "yes", it was changed to "no". I can guess at two possible reasons: 1) The article is considered to already have an infobox, which would be the portrait with his name? or 2) There is a consensus for the opera composer articles to not contain infoboxes? because they are considered to detract from the layout of the article? However, I've looked at Giuseppe Verdi and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, both of which, to my eyes :) have nice-looking infoboxes around the portrait. I believe the presence of an infobox is considered a standard for Biography articles; however, that consideration would be secondary to a consensus among a working group that maintains a certain set of articles, as, for example the Opera project group maintaining the composer articles. If I can understand the reason for the change, I can be better informed for future edits related to WPBio assessments. Thanks! Lini 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is because a lot of us who work on composer articles neither like infoboxes, nor feel they contribute useful content to articles. They jam composers into bins like "genre" "instruments played" in a way which is wholly inappropriate for phenomena such as Renaissance and Baroque music composers. CD shops may do these things to organise their disks for sale, but encyclopedias do their readers a disservice to say that a composer's "genre" is "Baroque" -- to give one example. They may be more appropriate to some areas than others: perhaps popular musicians may benefit from them: but for someone in the Venetian or Ferrarese schools, a maestro de cappella with multiple roles and stylistic attributes, anything found in an infobox other than birth and death dates is just misleading. My opinion. Antandrus (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus, that sounds reasonable to me. I will forbear from including "Needs infobox=yes" in any WPBio tags on Composer articles in the future. Cheers, Lini 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's a discussion we still need to have somewhere more central (not sure where) ... for example it may be appropriate to put someone like Philip Glass in "genre minimalism" but I'm not sure where to draw the line. Like so many things on Wikipedia, not quite enough people have yet gotten together to figure it out, and with composers I think it's unusually messy. Best regards, Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Books of madrigals

Any objections if I were to list out Monteverdi's books of madrigals, giving the Italian titles and years of publication?

Thanks, Lini 17:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mak (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added them. Two things that I'd like feedback on - 1) they take up more space than I expected, because the titles are so long. So, do we want to do something different, after all, other than listing them all out in this article? 2) If we do keep them here, is the format I used OK? If it could be improved, could you direct me to a good example? (Also, I tried out adjusting the size of the image down just a little - I think that result was good.) Thanks in advance for your feedback! Lini 02:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume that, for now, the added length to the article due to the list of madrigal books is OK. But, my feelings will not be hurt if someone decides at some future date, that something different needs to be done here. Thanks, Lini 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing tag

I cannot see any reason for the copy editing tag now. Can this be removed? Alacrid 11:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, all work and no play...?

Well, there was little "play" in M.'s life - although there was a plague - a very important one, because it took both of his children and drove him to become a priest... And while we're on the subject of children... they had a mother, too. His wife. Claudia.

Anyone willing to take it from here...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.55.188 (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The portrait

The portrait has been convincingly shown to be of the actor Tristano Martinelli, not Monteverdi, though it has appears as cover art even on a biography of Monteverdi. --Wetman (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanation

Explanation for why I deleted the external link marshall.charles.googlepages.com - English translations and recordings from the Fourth Book of Monteverdi's Madrigals: For an explanation of my decision to delete this external link, please see this Pasiphae discussion pagewhich is just one example of the way Wikipedia is going.--Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-insert external link to Monteverdi's Fourth Book of madrigals?

Hi there

Came across the website of translations of the Fourth Book that is under discussion in the previous section on this page (can't post the link 'cos it's been blacklisted). I think it would be a good resource to include on the Claudio_Monteverdi page, especially as each translation page includes the original Italian text and a recording.

In view of the fact the author of the webpages removed his site in April 2008 over a disagreement re editing policy, I've contacted him and asked if he would allow me to re-submit. He's OK with that.

What do people feel about reinserting the external link? --Lawrence Durbridge (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This is a decent B-class article; it would benefit from copyediting, and it needs more critical, popular, and historic views of his music. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Information in the first paragraph of "Life"

Is the sentence "The Maestro di capella’s job was to conduct important worship services in accordance with the liturgy books of the Catholic Church." really necessary? And if so, I think it needs revising as to the definition. Instead of the sentence, perhaps there could be a link to another entry "maestro di capella" defining it? At any rate, other articles referring to this term does not define it. At the very least, "M" should be lower case and the phrase should be italicized. I think the sentence should just be deleted.

By saying Monteverdi "learned about music by being part of the cathedral choir" takes away from the fact that he was directly tutored by Ingegneri. Ingegneri taught him counterpoint, viol, voice, and possibly organ. To say that he learned music by singing in a choir is really a stretch and really minimizes or ignores his excellent formal training.

Also, is that really what Shrade said, that he "also studied at the University of Cremona?" I haven't read the book, I have access to it, but we do need the page number for the citation. I haven't found any other reference to M. studying at a U. of Cremona. Studying at the cathedral WAS the university, I thought. Maybe not, but we need a good reference here. Groves makes no mention of it. Reeves makes no mention of it. Does Einstein? I'm going to the library right now and will check it out while I'm there.

Overall, I just find the first paragraph to be somewhat awkward and needs to be re-worked in my opinion.B0cean (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It was someone's class project for Union University, Jackson, Tennessee, in late 2008. No one has ever fixed it. Frankly I think it's ghastly and if you'd like to take a crack at a rewrite, please go ahead. Here's the complete diff of what the student did. I repaired most of the damage from the 2008 and 2009 projects, but evidently no one has gotten around to Monteverdi. Antandrus (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Beatus Vir? Dates at Cremona?

Could someone who knows about this work add something, please? And can someone add his dates as a member of the choir at Cremona?

80.5.29.158 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Good god, this is inadequate

I think this article should be made a priority for improvement. Tony (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What on earth does this language mean?

"L'Orfeo was not the first opera, but it was the first mature opera, or one that realized all of its potential".

What is a "mature" opera? When it was composed and performed, was it spotted and considered a "mature" opera, and by whom? Is there any documentary evidence that this opera was considered "mature" at the time? When did opera become "mature"? This is glib vocabulary that conveys no information, only the impressions of the editor, formed from associations of things read here and there, and repeated mechanically.

And, even more elusive, what is an opera that "realizes all of its potential"? What was, and even still, what is the "potential" of an opera, or a "mature opera"? Who detected "all the potential" of opera? And for what reasons? What were the assumptions, conscious or implicit, in order to identify an opera as "realizing all its potential". Was Haendel able to "realize" the "potential" of opera? Or was it Mozart? What about Bellini, Donizetti, or Verdi? What about Wagner, or Puccini, or Alan Berg? Or even John Adams? Who was able ever to mark the moment when opera "realized its full potential"? Was any composer conscious that he was doing this momentous and memorable act of "realization"?

Opera, since it was invented in Florence at the end of the 16th c., has gone through incessant changes and innovations, with a mix of conventions, traditions, and creativity. Who can define "all of its potential"?
Again, glib writing that pretends to sound profound and sententious, but in fact conveys no information whatsoever. Nearly weasel writing, as so much of it is encountered in Wikipedia style, where the editor covers up his lack of real knowledge, just repeating something read somewhere, while remaining incapable of appreciating its real relevance. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You are asking at the wrong place. This single sentence is cited to a book by John Whenham, published in 1986. You should probably ask Mr Whenham what he means. However, the word "mature" in the context almost certainly means "fully developed", in the sense that opera has come to be understood subsequent to Monteverdi's time. I would assume that Mr Whenham regards the few operas that preceded L'Orfeo to be less than fully developed, and this seems consistent with the opinions of other historians. To answer your second question, no, of course there is no evidence (documentary or otherwise) that people living at the very moment it was created recognized that it was exactly what opera would become over the next hundred years or so. How could there be? To answer your third question, according to Whenham, opera became mature with L'Orfeo. Wasn't that implicit in your first question? Now, for the rest, of course you have got a point but, once again, this appears to be Whenham's opinion. If there are contrary views from reliable sources, then naturally they ought to be introduced here. Keep in mind that there is a yawning gulf between weasel wording and citing an opinion expressed in a reliable source (and I can only assume that Whenham's book satisfies the requirements for one—I have not examined it myself). This certainly seems like an enormous storm brewed up in the teacup of one short sentence, attributed to a source which any reader can consult. Oh, yes: a Wikipedia editor who interprets the meaning of ambiguous wording in an otherwise reliable source is indulging in original research. Of course, reviewing that source may discover further statements that help to make the meaning clear, without having to rely on such opinions. Please feel free to carry out such an investigation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ossi citations (currently nos 17 and 22)

• No. 17 cites the statement "Here at the town of Spa he became acquainted with contemporary music of the French school" to Ossi, p. 101. This seems to be a rather fanciful summary of what the source says, which is broadly that Giulio Cesare concocted a connection between Claudio and the poet Chiabrera's "new French-inspired poetic ideas". There was evidently some advantage to the Monteverdis in claiming this association; not sure what it was, but I don't think the current sentence is an accurate summary of what's in the text.
• No. 22 cites the statement "This (the Artusi) debate confirmed Monteverdi's position as a leading musical stylist of the period" to Ossi p. 100. What Ossi says is different: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developoments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown". Some textual adjustment is necessary, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Have recast these; hope this is an improvement.Smerus (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Artusi controversy

I've added a short paragraph, and also retitled the appropriate subsections. By all means change/tinker, it's only a suggestion. I don't propose to discuss the controversy in the Music section in any detail, but any reader who gets that far in the article will need to be familiar with the story and the terminology. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that the Cusick stuff belongs in the article - it's only peripherally (and rather doubtfully) about CM. Maybe it would be better to include it in an extended Giovanni Artusi article with detailed stuff about the controversy - the Artusi article anyway needs a rewrite. For the present I'm shifting Cusick to a 'Modern approaches' section, as it's certainly overload in the biography section.Smerus (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks a little odd, tucked at the end of the article. I think that, unlesss we are to develop a proper "Modern approaches" section it might be as well to ditch the para, which I will do for the time being. It can always be brought back if we decide to elaborate on this aspect. Cusick gets another bite at the cherry in her comments on Arianna's lament, but at least those comments are more musically based.

On another matter, I'm inclined to think that the links to the various subarticles dealing with individual works should be in the Music section rather than in the Biography, as it's in the Music section that the detailed discussion of works takes place. If you agree I'll see to this. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

A bit tricky. WP procedure says they should be linked only at the first appearance.MOS:DUPLINK. But if they are linked only in the music section (which wd be their second appearance), then readers of the biography might be a bit miffed if they want to know more. I suggest that the best thing would be to link them at first appearances in both biography and music sections.

Re Cusick: if you are going to have a section on legacy/interpretation then it could go there . See e.g. Dick Carter. I would add it anyway to Giovanni Artusi, which I might tinker with.--Smerus (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Concitato genera

The "Maturity" subsection of "Life" contains the following paragraph:

Amongst Monteverdi's private Venetian patrons was the nobleman Girolamo Mocenigo, at whose home was premiered in 1624 the dramatic entertainment Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda based on an episode from Torquato Tasso's La Gerusalemme liberata. When the work was later published in 1638, Monteverdi explicitly linked it to his concept of concitato genera (aroused style) "that would fittingly imitate the utterance and the accents of a brave man who is engaged in warfare", and insinuated that since he had originated this style, others had begun to copy it. The work employed for the first time instructions for the use of pizzicato string chords, and also evocations of fanfares and other sounds of combat."

I have no issue with this wording; I had indeed included something similar in the Eighth Book segment, but struck it out after reading your text which puts the matter rather better than I did. However, I wonder if the two sentences from "When the work was published..." might be a better fit in the "Music" section? It's there rather than in the Life that we tend to raise features of particular works, and the concitato genera was an important element in the Eighth book. Can we consider this? Other similar examples may arise when we comb through the text after completing the drafts. Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree - and also agree that there could be other bits to shuffle. --Smerus (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've made this adjustment – you may want to check it out. If you see other cases where you think a similar shift is called for, by all means go ahead. We'll obviously check this aspect again when finalising the draft. I reckon I need about another week to to finish the Music section, and to cobble together a Legacy-type conclusion. And the lead needs to be rewritten when all else is done. But generally I'm pretty pleased with the progress thus far; already the article is looking in much better shape. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm very happy with the music sections, many thanks. There is a bit on contrafacta at the bottom, left over from the old article. It could I think either be included in the 'Opera and sacred music 1607-12' section, or maybe even deleted - what do you think? Apart from tinkering, I'm not intending to alter the article until you have dealt with music and legacy, and then I would be glad to work on the lead with you. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I've temporarily deleted the contrafacta bit, as I think this might better belong in a redesigned "list of works" which I intend to work on when I'm done with the text here. I don't think the link to the Stattkus-Verzeichnis catalogue really fits the purpose beyond indicating where the "SV" notation comes from. An external link to the online version of catalogue, rather than a redundant WP article, seems preferable. Whenham's catalogue is a great source and I'll work on a simplified version of that. I'm signining off for a while now, in favour of tennis and cricket. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Eminently sensible proposal. Have a great weekend.--Smerus (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The tennis was one-sided and the cricket bloody awful. So I'm back here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

books 3-5

'...by means of a vocal ornament Palisca describes as échappé, in Monteverdi's daring use, "how much stranger and like a forbidden pleasure...!"[77]...' Something missing here? Is "how much stranger" a quote from Palisca or the madrigal? Also, what work by Palisca is cited?(not in sources). Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've added Palisca to the sources, and I've tweaked the text to make it clearer. But this bit of detail may not survive the ultimate cut, when I finally trim my prose – it's 50:50 at the moment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Life to music

I have just made a proposed shift of Taruskin from Life to music. I now wonder whether the bulk of the Artusi stuff in the Life shouldn't be shifted. It's more musicological than biographical; we could simply in the Life mention something like "At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy, condemning his use of harmony and of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century.[16]. See (new internal link:)Artusi controversy below." Then perhaps one could separate book 3 from books 4 and 5 in the Music section and insert the bulk of the stuff about the controversy in a new section after book 3.--Smerus (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we leave it as it is for the moment? I've taken down the construction banner, but I'm still tinkering with the Music prose with which I'm not yet entirely happy. Having written it episodically, I'm not sure if it reads well as a single entity, and I detect residual windbaggery in places. Also we don't want to denude the Life section of all meat. There'll be time enough for final adjustments later; meantime I'm happy with the Taruskin shift. I moved a small chunk from Life to Music myself, hope that's OK with you. Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine, I leave it all in your hands for the present. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Final polishing

I've read both the two main tranches of text, made a few more minor adjustments and removed some duplications. I think they are reasonably OK now. On balance I believe the Artusi material should stay where it is, with the Music section concentrating on the nature and character of Monteverdi's music, rather than the critical/political factors it engendered. Your description of the controversy sits very well in the Life section.

It would be a good idea if you (Smerus) had a final read-through to assure youself that the text is up to scratch. When you're satisfied, the following tasks remain:

• A short(ish) "Legacy" section. I've started work on this and it should be ready in a couple of days or so.
• Expand the lead per MoS. Perhsaps you'd have first dibs at that, but you may want to await the Legacy section first
• Audit the reference and sources formats to ensure consistency. I don't mind doing this.
• Trim the External links section. Only links of genuiune use to readers should be kept.

And that should be about it. I've started to compile a proper "List of Compositions", but that's a separate task from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK tks. I will await legacy section, and then try a redraft of the lead.--Smerus (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've undertaken some small tinkering of the text with a vieew to (I hope) clarification. I note btw. that you cite Redlich, but he is not in the sources. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• That's one reason why the sources audit is necessary - I'll see to it. Thanks for the ce, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've now added a draft of the "Historical perspective" (rather than "Legacy") section and will be polishing it today, adding refs etc. Thanks, by the way, for your addition which I've absorbed untouched. If you have further suggestions please bring them forward, but I don't think the section ought to be much longer. You can perhaps attempt the lead now. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

other venice music

Query: Who is Bianchi (the publisher) - any first name? - I can't find any other references to him anywhere.--Smerus (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(dropping by) Presumably Giulio Cesare Bianchi [1]. If the link doesn't work it's The Letters of Claudio Monteverdi, translated by Denis Stevens, page 79. Bianchi was a native of Cremona and a former pupil of Monteverdi's. He published two books of church music in 1620, containing 42 of his own compositions and 7 by Monteverdi. Hope this helps. --Folantin (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Brill, many thanks.--Smerus (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Music Online refs

For User: Smerus I see you have reorganised my Grove Music Online citations into a new format. Your system is undoubtedly tider, though removing the links to the source from the citations takes away a convenience from readers. The only link to OMO you have made available is that in the "Book sources". Readers may not find this easy to locate; also it appears to be confined to members of Senate House Libraries. The link I used is available via public library subscription to anyone in the UK, so I've restored that link as being likely more useful than the Senate Libraries one. How about we put the links to individual essays back in the citations? That, too, would surely be useful. A minor point – should we not specify authorship as either Carter or Chew - they were not joint authors of the material, but wrote separate essays? Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think the protocol is that when there is a single encyclopaedia article (written by one or more authors), then all references to the article should be under a single citation in the sources. The individual sections of the encyclopaedia article don't I think 'count' as separate publications in the sources - if the article was printed, you would cite page numbers, but as it isn't I've used § and the section heading to indicate where to find the reference. (And doubtless Carter and Chew, rather like you and I, would have checked with each other and modified their entries to ensure consistency). I've therefore used the 'cite encyclopaedia' template for Carter and Chew and put it in the sources - see what you think. If it's OK we should adopt it for the other Grove citations.--Smerus (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable, though I have reservations. While "cite encyclopedia" is certainly appropriate for the New Grove entries, Oxford Music Online is a website, so the "cite web" template is more correct. But I doubt it's a point that anyone will raise – my chief concern is that the OMO link should be through the public library route rather than via a limited membership, and provided we keep that, I'm happy to go along with your plan. I still have some nitpicky stuff to do on citation formats, like combining overlapping page ranges, checking for hyphens etc, and I'd like to fiddle with the lead a bit. What then? Shall we open a peer review and invite some general comment? I'd be pleased to hear some outside views. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes I have some fiddling to do as well. Give it a few days and then let's go for peer review?--Smerus (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I've done my bit to the lead. I'm ready for a PR whenever you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That's all fine by me, let's go for it now!Smerus (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Images, ossia "what does this picture bringing to the article?"

Ideally, images should both enrich and complement the text in an article, providing something more than the words alone can convey.

Portrait of a Musician by a Cremonese artist. This is a contemporary picture from the right period and right locality that shows the clothing and relevent instruments of Monteverdi's time.

The fact that there is a baseless suggestion that the sitter might be Monteverdi himself should not count against it. (Just omit the suggestion)

Contemporary images of theatres or stage performances would be welcome, even from other composers. According to Roy Strong: "the designs for the 1589 intermezzi are crucial, for they are the earliest mass-disseminated illustrations of what became a norm throughout Europe for theatrical visual experience for the next three hundred years, the proscenium arch behind which receded ranks of side wings, the vista closed by a back-shutter". There's a 1616 Jacques Callot illustration of the Teatro Mediceo in the Uffizi, built in 1586 by architect and deviser-of-spectacles Bernardo Buontalenti: here

The example that I linked in the peer review, the prologue of Orazio Vecchi's L'Amfiparnaso (1597) offers a possible example (though this particular source is not free of copyright). (I had somehow failed to mentally connect Monteverdi to the period of the Elizabethan madrigal until I discovered that John Dowland had travelled to Florence in 1595 to study, but the costumes in that image would have provided a strong hint).

I tried looking in festival books. I've very quickly skimmed the British Library website, but only found these (neither very useful):

• The courtyard of the Palazzo de' Pitti, decorated for a 1579 Medici wedding: http://www.bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/pageview.aspx?strFest=0199&strPage=11
• Ballet performed at the court of Catherine de' Medici on the occasion of Henri III's accession to the French throne 1573). Key guests on dais, notables standing in side loggias, others on foot, all talking and ignoring the ballet in-the-round. (The hall was constructed in a 'hortis suburbanis', which makes it sound like someone's back-garden.) http://www.bl.uk/treasures/festivalbooks/pageview.aspx?strFest=0038&strPage=49

The BL site lists many other books, and links other sites with other festival book collections.

Surely there must be something, somewhere on the Teatro San Cassiano? This would have the advantage of a space specifically linked to Monteverdi.

There will be images out there, naturally out of copyright, that will illustrate the theatre structures, clothing, instruments, costumes, etc of Monteverdi's time. It's just a matter of hunting them down. Scarabocchio (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yeh, but.....the article is about Monteverdi, not theatre structures or stage performance at the juncture of the Renaissance and Baroque periods, (in articles on which topics all of the above would be of relevance of course). There is a case for the Cremona portrait of a musician, but the article does already have a picture with a group of musicians from 1623.Smerus (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• It seems that I have no convincing argument against your position   :-^   Scarabocchio (talk) 06:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's only my opinion so far :-) - let's see if others have anything to say....Smerus (talk) 09:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303210657/http://www.gerald-drebes.ch/page5.html to http://www.gerald-drebes.ch/page5.html

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) 22:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

citation page range presentation

@Smerus: Some of the citations had full page ranges (like 123–124) and some were shortened (like 123–4 or 123–24). This has been corrected IAW how the ranges were presented at the top of the article (e.g., 123–24) so that the spans are consistent. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

early appreciation of Monteverdi

An IP editor has sought to change the text to assert that Monteverdi's madrigals were well known in the 18th and 19th century. The citation used to support this was an Italian pdf article on the internet which speculates that Verdi may have known of Monteverdi's madrigals - which does not substantiate the changes. I have therefore reverted them. --Smerus (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Claudio Monteverdi --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)