Wikipedia:Peer review/Concerto delle donne/archive1

Concerto delle donne

I suppose I'm looking to making this become an FA (I figure it's time to get an FA, I've been here long enough :) I'd especially appreciate comments on structure, and whether you're left with significant questions at the end of reading it. I have more information which could possibly be incorporated, but I'm trying not to let the article bloat too much, so information on what other people feel they're missing out on would be really helpful. More eyes in terms of copyediting would also be helpful. But, of course, I welcome any questions or comments which you think will lead to this becoming a better article. Thanks very much for your time. Mak (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dum de dum, twiddle the fingers, GA is so slow!!!. Not really too much wrong with the article, but yes, a thorough copyedit at one point won't go amiss. I'll give it a go ASAP (now, if not sooner). It would be nice to know what exactly was the range of these fascinating ladies, also tessitura, (I wouldn't have thought too high; as far as I'm aware the emphasis at the time (and until and during Handel) was on vocal virtuosity and brilliance and ornamentation and embellishment (i.e showing off), but not on range, but maybe these girls were an exception, and I could be wrong anyway, as the whole area seems rather disputed. And what exactly was the vocal composition of the group; all sopranos? I'd have thought not, as certainly I'd have wanted some contraltos to provide ballast and a touch of gravitas (which was presumably what the bass did before he got fired). Superbly referenced, BTW. Great article; I hope it gets to FA status quickly. Cheers, Moreschi 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on finding that info without doing too much original research right now. Mak (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the Grove article on sopranos in conjunction with Newcomb's music supplement: the highest note given for sopranos for pre-1600 was g''. The highest note given in Newcomb's supplement is a'', with fairly common g''s. Just from looking over some of the music, it does seem to be in a high tessitura, especially for the period. A number of the pieces stay between e'' and g'' in the upper voice. I guess that's one of the few sentences I left unreferenced, but it comes from the Grove article on Monteverdi, I've added that in. Hopefully my recent edits have made the makeup of the ensemble clearer, even though it evolved through time. From 1577-1580 Brancaccio sang with whomever the duke forced him to sing with, which at times included the ladies. After this, no more men sang with the women who comprised the concerto delle donne (which had a million and a half names, check out the redirects), and the musical role they would play in terms of depth of texture or harmonic basis, was taken over by instruments (as shown in the quote about Caccini, hopefully). Unfortunately, discussion of the ensemble is not cut and dried, because it changed through time, without necessarily completely clear breaks between what we would consider periods. This is in part in reference to Peirigill's comments below. In short, it seems that after the dismissal of Brancaccio, the group was made up entirely of women, and that these women were sopranos (in fact Grove's article on sopranos mentions the singers of the Ferrarese court in the lede) who either accompanied themselves on their respective instruments, or Luzzaschi and Fiorino on keyboard and lute respectively. I'll go check that that's clear. Thanks Moreschi. Mak (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Peirigill 1

I'm giving it the old "what would Tony say?" copyedit:

• LEDE
  • "The Concerto delle donne (lit. consort of ladies) was a group of professional female singers established by Duke Alfonso II of Ferrara in 1580 and active until the court was dissolved in 1597." The first sentence should explain the meaning of the term and the notability of the topic. Leave any other details until later in the lede. How about something like "The Concerto delle donne (lit. consort of ladies) was a group of professional female singers in the late Renaissance court of Ferrara, renowned for their technical and artistic virtuosity. Established by Duke Alfonso..." Also, why is "Concerto" capitalized here but nowhere else in the article?
    • Done? Mak.
  • The lede looks too short. It should be an abstract of the article, summarizing the important points and not including anything not mentioned later. My rule of thumb is that if something is important enough to merit a section heading, it should be mentioned in the lede. I'd like to see some mention of the evolution of the group and a description of their music in the lede.
    • Hm, according to AndyZ's automated script it is (and was when you wrote that comment) too long, although it's been expanded. I anticipate it changing a lot, but is it better now? Mak
  • Apparent contradiction: The lede says that "The Concerto delle donne (lit. consort of ladies) was a group of professional female singers," but the History section says "In the beginning, the concerto delle donne was comprised of talented amateurs." I suggest removing or replacing "professional" in the first sentence, and mentioning the transition to professional membership in the part of the lede that summarizes the History section.
    • As I've already mentioned, the terminology is somewhat muddied. One of the major aspects that makes this group interesting is the fact that they were professional, so leaving that out of the lede sentence doesn't make sense to me. Hopefully subsequent edits to the lede have made this more clear. Mak
  • "Giacomo Vincenti, a music publisher, praised the women as "virtuose giovani" (virtuosic youths) in 1598, echoing the sentiments of contemporary diarists and commentators, who praised the women in their writings." Lots of commas here, which impede flow. How about "Music publisher Giacomo Vincenti"? Also, you're repeating yourself; Vincenti praised the women, and commentators praised the women. Can you restructure the sentence so that you only use "praised" once? Either find another word for "praised," or simplify the structure to something like "Music publisher Giacomo Vincente echoed the sentiments of contemporary diarists and commentators when he praised the ladies as 'virtuose giovani'" or "Music publisher Giacomo Vincente praised the ladies as 'virtuose giovani,' echoing the sentiments of contemporary diarists and commentators." I'd leave out the 1598, at least in the lede, since the lede should be about the big picture. Leave such details for the main article.
    • Done? Mak
  • "it revolutionised both women's role in professional music, and was..." "Both" isn't grammatical here. "Women's role" seems odd to me. I'm changing it to "the role of women," but feel free to revert that if you like.
    • Done?
  • "was a major propaganda victory for the Este court." The ensemble wasn't really "propaganda," was it? See if you like my rewording.
    • Google books As I see it, the concerto was propaganda in that part of its purpose was to project the power and prestige of the Este court to other groups of nobles. The music was gaurded, the women were treated as prized posessions (perhaps that is too strong, but the duke was careful to find them suitable husbands within his own court), and Alfonso showed it off at every opportunity. They always travelled with him. This fits in with my concept of propaganda, but of course better and clearer wordings are always welcome. Mak
  • "The concerto delle donne was imitated throughout Italy." Really? Even in Sicily and Sardinia? By the common folk as well as in the courts? I thought it was mostly a northern Italian phenomenon. That seems confirmed in the "Influence" section, where you say it "became a cliché of northern Italian courts." If it was really imitated and not just discussed throughout Italy, you need to cite this fact; if you just summarized this imprecisely, then you need to reword the lede. How about "Word of the ladies' ensemble spread across Italy, inspiring imitations in the powerful northern courts of the Medici and Orsini"? (I'm leaving out "families" as redundant; if you think it needs to be made explicit that the Medici and Orsini were families, please put that word back in.)
    • Much better now, thank you. The cliche bit I think is well sourced now. Mak
  • "The foundation of the concerto delle donne was the most important development in secular Italian in the last third of the sixteenth century, the period leading up to the development of opera." This sentence needs some work. I think "founding" clearer than "foundation," which has other meanings. There seems to be a word missing: "in secular Italian" music? culture? I'm not clear what the connection is between the ladies and opera history. Are you trying to say that the founding of the concerto delle donne was a critical step towards the development of opera? If so, that's not clear; "the period leading up to the development of opera" feels like an afterthought. If the ladies weren't key to the creation of opera, then just leave the bit about opera out. However, I suspect they were. See if you like my tentative edit.
    • I do like your edit. The connection with opera is not explicitly stated in any of my sources (that I remember so far...), but there are many links, and I think looking at the social structures and music in the context of developing opera is a good way to understand better... Perhaps someone will write a doctoral thesis on it soon. I could expound more on the connections of you'd like. The sources I have mostly connect them to opera through connections with the Commedia dell'arte. Mak
• HISTORY
  • "First period" and "Second period" are bland. What about "Musica secreta" and "Professional reorganization"?
    • I think I've misled you as to what musica secreta means. It refers to the social construct of chamber music made for a small select audience, and extends before and after the concerto delle donne, and was present in courts which did not have a concerto delle donne. The concerto secreto were the people who made the music. and ""The concerto secreto at Ferrara was usually called the concerto delle donne, or the ladies' ensemble, in recognition of the most striking feature of the ensemble - its three or four highly skilled female singers." (Newcomb 1980 pg 4)
  • Was Luzzasco the only composer for the early group?
    • Yes. Mak
  • "Vittoria Bentivoglio (a member of the Bentivoglio family)." It's obvious that Vittoria was a member of the Bentivoglio family. If there's something about the Bentivogli that merits a separate link, you should specify what that is. Something like "...and Vittoria Bentivoglio. Vittoria's presence added to the ensemble's notoriety, since the Bentivoglio family had a reputation for fantastic diva fits, the likes of which would not be seen again until Project Runway."
    • Sorry, that was pre-stub info. Mak
  • "and the bass Giulio Cesare Brancaccio." Huh? What's a dude doing in the concerto delle donne?
    • Responded elsewhere. Mak
      • Still a problem, I'm afraid. The Formation section starts: "At the court in Ferrara was a collection of highly skilled but amateur ladies... This group, which led to the formation of the concerto delle donne, performed within the context of the Duke's musica secreta... This preliminary group was originally made up of talented but amateur members of the court:[4] the sisters Lucrezia and Isabella Bendidio, Leonora Sanvitale, Vittoria Bentivoglio, and the bass Giulio Cesare Brancaccio." You're still identifying the group as all-female, and then inserting Brancaccio without comment. You should either describe the group in more vague terms, or (preferably) explain Brancaccio separately. See if you like my edit. Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I've tried to better explain nomenclature+Brancaccio. Mak

**"It was viewed as an extraordinary and new phenomenon in 1580, and most witnesses did not connect the second period of the concerto delle donne with the group of ladies who sang in the musica secreta during the first period." I'm taking out "in 1580," because you had just mentioned that in the previous paragraph. Is it accurate to say "It was an extraordinary and novel phenomenon"? If contemporaries didn't link the musica secreta with the concerto delle donne, and the staffing and performance venue were totally different, why do we link them now? I don't understand the connection.

• • • Responded elsewhere. Mak
      • I'm leaving in my suggestion of "extraordinary and novel phenomenon" instead of "extraordinary and new phenomenon." It's mostly aesthetic on my part, so use it or not as you prefer. (Virtuosic three-part women's polphony wasn't wholly new; there are such pieces in the Codex Las Huelgas, although the courtiers wouldn't have known about that.) Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "The most dominant member..." Does "dominant" admit of degree? How about "prominent" or "virtuosic" or "talented" or "renowned"?
    • Done. Mak

**"The most dominant member...followed by..." implies a ranking, in which Laura is more dominant than Anna and Anna is more dominant than Livia. How about "The most prominent membe

• • "followed by Anna Guarini (daughter of Giovanni Battista Guarini)." Why is Giovanni important? If he's important, mention him and explain his importance to the ensemble in a separate sentence. If he's not important, remove the whole parenthetical phrase (parenthetical phrases impede flow (see?)).
    • Done. Mak
  • "The maestro di capella at the time was Ippolito Fiorini (1568–1597)." If the maestro doesn't compose or direct, what the heck does he do? "At the time" is unclear. Because you're giving Fiorini's dates, the phrase is also slight redundant. Would it be correct to say "Ippolito Fiorini (1568–1597) was the group's first maestro di capella"?
    • Clarified? He was in charge of music for the whole court, not just the musica secreta, but he also performed with them on the lute.
  • "the duke specifically asked his wife Margherita Gonzaga to bring Laura Peverara with her from Mantua as part of her retinue when they were married because of Peverara's musical abilities." I can't help but poke a little fun here... What?! Margherita married Laura? Did the Pope know? And she married her because of her musical abilities? That sounds filthy and dirty and unwholesome. Tell me more! (Seriously, the sentence needs a little restructuring. I'm excising "when they were married" because it doesn't really add to the point you're making.)
    • Yeah, I kinda suck at writing. I think you or Mark fixed that. Mak

Egads! I was typing in my comments as I went along and then I must have accidently used that window to look something up and closed it. Oh well, Peirigill's editing it right now anyway, so I'll take a break and avoid edit conflicts. MarkBuckles 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A couple of the redundancies are because of stubs which didn't used to exist but now do. I think most of these issues have been resolved, mainly by the work of yourself and Mark. The sentence in the lede didn't work, because Ferrara had been a center of musical innovation since the 13th century, but this was when it was really re-vamped, and Alfonso really claimed that tradition and made something of it. There's some confusion both within and among my sources about what constitutes the real concerto delle donne. Newcomb basically splits it into two periods, which makes a lot of sense. I think it's important to include the earlier period, because Luzzaschi was already experimenting with the new vocal textures with them, he introduced Brancaccio into the mix. These were basically the first professional women musicians of the time and place, but they didn't start out being seen as professionals, and in that way were more connected with the first group. Contemporaries may have seen the group as entirely new, but it grew out of this earlier group. The names you suggest for the two periods are somewhat misleading, as the second period of the concerto also performed in the musica secreta. As for a man in the concerto delle donne, what was surprising and exciting about them was the number of womens' voices all together, and that a man was also there singing the bass part I don't think would have detracted from this interesting novelty. And yes, I use way too many subordinate clauses and parenthetical statements. I confess it to you all. Purge me of my sin! :) Mak (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I had to break off editing shortly after discovering our edit conflict on the article, even forgetting to sign above. Oops! Well, let's continue...

• HISTORY, continued...
  • "The singers in the second group were upper-class, but were not of sufficient standing to have been included in the inner circle of the court, were it not for their abilities as performers. The only member of the second concerto who was a member of the nobility was Livia d'Arco, but only a very minor branch." Tony objects to repeated words. "Were" appears three times in the first sentence, "member" and "only" twice each in the second. Watch out for that as you edit.
  • "The only member of the second concerto who was a member of the nobility was Livia d'Arco, but only a very minor branch. The remainder of the second group was not of the nobility;" Similarly, these sentences repeat the same information; if Livia was the only noble, then we already know the others weren't. Same goes for "obliquely infiltrated." "Infiltrate" already implies indirect, clandestine action. I think I have a workable fix.
    • Looks good to me. I'll keep looking for redundancies and repeated words, but it's always a help to have more eyes. Mak
  • "the city devolved to the papacy." Is this the correct usage of "devolved"? The article on devolution that you link to doesn't describe this situation. "Reverted" to the papacy, maybe?
    • The source I had said "devolved", but you're right, it doesn't quite make sense (in fact it's the opposite. I think what happened was that the popes, a couple centuries before, entrusted the Este with the city of Ferrara, and after much angling, and several "natural"-born dukes, the line finally couldn't hold it anymore when Alfonso failed to produce an heir. I've changed the wording to reverted. Mak

Peirigill 2

• CAPTIONS
  • Per WP:CAPTION, take advantage of some FA reviewers' preference for captions that are complete sentences. Use your captions to expand on the article so they illustrate the article rather than just decorating it.
  • "The Estense palace in Ferrara." Can you say something like "The ladies of the concerto performed in the Estense palace in Ferrara"? (Note: I've elaborated on the description for this caption. Please feel free to edit if I said anything incorrect. --Moreschi 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC))

• • "Scudi, the payment members of the concerto received." Can you use this caption to comment on the burgeoning economies of the Italian noble families or city-states?
  • How about getting the frontispiece of one of Luzzaschi's scores? Better yet, an excerpt of the score of one of his songs, showing a virtuosic line with lots of thirty-second notes?
    • Working on it. I haven't found any facsimiles of any of the music in question, and I'm hesitant to use Newcomb's editions. I'll see what I can do about musical examples. Mak

More later... Peirigill 05:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I love the info on Guarini! Good addition. Looking over our collective edits so far, three things still leap out at me:

• It's still not clear whether the musica secreta is the concerto version 1.0 or not. The lede still says that the concerto was made of professional women, but the musica secreta is amateur and mixed. If the musica secreta is a version of the concerto, the lede needs a broader definition. If not (which I suspect is the case), then the History section needs to state that more clearly, starting with revised section headers. From what I've seen, I recommend referring to the musica secreta as the "precursor" of the concerto delle donne, not an early stage of it.
• The organization doesn't yet make sense to me. Paragraphs are too short. The Influences section seems like it's out of place. The paragraph explaining the transition from the musica secreta to the concerto (the one starting "The duke did not start out by announcing the beginning of an all female and professional musica secreta") comes several paragraphs after it looks like we're done talking about the musica secreta and have moved on to the concerto.
• I still don't understand how the ladies functioned as propaganda, which is still mentioned in the Influences section.

I'll look at the Music section tomorrow. Good work so far! Peirigill 06:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The organization still sucks, but I hope the musica secreta and propaganda issues are clearer to you now. Apologies for any and all edit conflicts. Mak (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Does this edit clarify enough? I thought that the first paragraph in the lede could focus on the main group, the group of professionals, and the second paragraph would give the background of the earlier group of women. Is that still too unclear, in conjunction with the change in wordings/headings in the History section? Mak (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's O.K, but when did what we might recognise as the forerunners of the Concerto (i.e the first amateur group) first perform? At the moment it seems as though the profs started in 1580, but a date for the amateurs isn't specified (in fact, dates as a whole are all a bit fuzzy). Best, Moreschi 21:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, 1580 is when the professional group started. The other group is not as clear. Brancaccio came in 1577 (left in 1583, I think I had that wrong before). Newcomb basically gives "the 1570s" as the time period for some members of the earlier group. The group of amateur ladies was more complete and coherent by 1577, but it's not as though there was a "founding" it was more like something that happened which became a fad within the court, which led to professionals being hired. Can you tell me what other dates are unclear? Mak (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I see how you've clarified it and it's now perfectly comprehensible. I now think the only problem remaining is that two paragraphs in the "Music" section need fleshing out, and another one in the "Influence" bit. Apart from that, pretty much all of the concerns raised in this productive peer review seem to have been addressed - Bravo! Cheers, Moreschi 08:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Peirigill 3

Peirigill here again. Great job so far.

• I've tweaked the captions.
• Per WP:MOS, section headers shouldn't include words from the article's title, so "Concerto delle donne proper" won't work. I've suggested a slight restructuring and renaming.
  • • I like what you've done. Mak
• MUSIC
  • "Lodovico Agostini's third book of madrigals was perhaps the first publication," and later, "Claudio Monteverdi's Canzonette a tre voci was probably influenced." "Perhaps" and "probably" will be challenged as weasel words. You should either reword it ("was among the first publications" or "was an early publication") or make it explicit in the footnote that the source that you're citing says "perhaps" and "probably."
    • As much as I would like to avoid "Weasel words" there is only so much I can do. There is not a complete historical record for this period, not every music book published survives. My sources equivocate, and so I feel duty-bound to equivocate as well. I've double checked these two instances with the sources, and I feel they now accurately reflect what is expressed in those sources. Mak
  • "Lodovico Agostini's third book of madrigals was perhaps the first publication to exploit the new singing style made famous by the group. It contains pieces dedicated to Guarini." Tony will definitely challenge any use of the word "it" whose antecedent is remote: does "it" refer to the book, the publication, the style, or the group? The challenge is that Tony frowns on repeating words from one sentence to the next. I'm taking out "made famous by the group," since I think that context is understood.
    • I like your fix. Mak
  • "Giaches de Wert also wrote for the group." "Also" is a red-flag word. Especially in light of Giaches' earlier history with the group, is there something else you can say? Even "Giaches de Wert wrote canzonetti for the group" or "wrote the madrigal Ho fame da lupo for the group" would let you avoid the dreaded "also."
    • Fleshed out a bit, hopefully haven't introduced new problems. Mak
      • "the first true musical monuments" is POV, but if your source supports this, you should be okay. Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "Although works for three voices were most clearly written for this new group, solo singing with accompaniment and diminutions also remained an important skill." "Although" is another word Tony will pounce on, unless it indicates a clear contradiction. Do you mean to say that accompanied solos with diminutions were less likely to have been written for the group? I'll try a rewording.
    • Hm, excellent point. The contrast is between what was composed for the group, and what the performance practice of the group was. Solo singing to accompaniment with diminutions was a normal practice, even before the concerto delle donne. It is difficult to say whether pieces written in this style by composers who were in close contact with the Ferrarese court were written with the ladies of the concerto in mind. However, works written with diminutions for a number of voices by composers within the sphere of influence of the Ferrarese court can be said to be influenced by the concerto. But, even though it wasn't revolutionary to do so, the ladies in the group did sing solo madrigals with accompaniment and diminutions. I'll try to clarify this. Mak
  • "the exemplar of the musical style of the concerto delle donne." Tony doesn't like repeated use of the phrase "of the." I've tried one fix; you might also say "of the musical style made famous by the concerto delle donne."
    • Nice fix. Mak
  • "Alessandro Striggio, responding to requests from Francesco I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1584." Did Striggio respond in 1584, or did Francesco request in 1584? It's not clear.
    • Both and. I've re-ordered this, is it clearer now?
  • "so that the duke could start his own concerto delle donne. The works he mentions are an ornamented four voice madrigal." Who is the "he" who mentions it: the duke, or Striggio? Beware pronouns with remote antecedents! Also, is "duke" capitalized or not? That should be made consistent throughout the article.
    • When the context is "the duke did foo" it should be lowercase. When the context is within a title or full name, it should be capitalized. I think I've made this consistent. I've replaced "the duke" with "Francesco", which will hopefully clarify who "his own" refers to. Is this then redundant? Possibly, but I think such an emphasis on ownership is important.
      • Ok, apparently not, I don't know. I suppose if it's a specific duke it's Duke and if it's a class it's duke. At least it's consistent, though. Mak
  • "Alessandro Striggio ... wrote letters about the concerto delle donne, and also wrote pieces. The works he mentions..." Repeated use of "wrote" and inconsistent shift from past tense ("wrote") to present tense ("mentions"). I've put in a fix.
    • Looks good. Mak
  • "The output of the ducal printer, Vittorio Baldini, was largely of music written for the concerto delle donne, including the madrigals of the foremost madrigalists, Luzzasco Luzzaschi, Carlo Gesualdo, and Alfonso Fontanelli. His first work for the duke was Il lauro secco (1582), which was followed by Il lauro verde (1583), both of which contained music by the foremost madrigalists of the time." "Foremost" is POV. Is this your opinion, Newcomb's opinion, or Baldini's opinion? (Luzzaschi and Gesualdo I might let slide, but who's Fontanelli?) I know I'm nitpicking, but the FA reviewers will do citation checks, and will challenge footnoted claims that assert more than the original source does. Tony will NOT let the repetition of "madrigal" in the phrase "the madrigals of the foremost madrigalists" slide, especially when followed immediately by "the foremost madrigalists of the time" in the next sentence. If you need to specify "of the time" in the second sentence, why did you omit that qualification in the first sentence? This paragraph needs to be re-written, and I'm not sure how to do it.
    • The Fontanelli thing is not my POV, but Newcomb's. I remember thinking it was weird, as I'd never heard of him, and double checking. I don't know how to make this sort of POV issue clearer without constantly writing "Newcomb, who's the person who's done all the work in this area and written all the articles on all these people in Grove, and is constantly cited in other works on the period and whose book is held up as a pillar of scholarship, says Foo." which seems excessive :) Unfortunately, my laptop with my notes has died and I don't have access to that page of that article, so I can't triple check. The redundancy is because of excessive copy-pasting. It might still need expansion or integration, but it's no longer as redundant.
  • "castrati were shortly to become the biggest stars of the new art form of opera." "Biggest stars" is POV unless you give a citation. Tony will likely object to the repetition of the word "of" in the phrase "of the new art form of opera." I've trimmed this down.
    • I didn't do it :) I think this has now been sufficiently modified and cited.
  • "no less than four castrato roles, showing just how dominant the castrato voice was at this time." Tony will object to "no less than." Is four really such a significant number that it proves the dominance of the castrato voice? Since it's not self-evident, it looks like either original work or an unverified claim — both no-nos.
    • Four out of either 8 or 9, depending on what you count, according to Grove. I'd say half is pretty significant. Source added.
  • "Orazio Urbani, having waited several years to see the concerto, complained that he was forced to play cards while listening to the women, as well as admire and praise their music." Was he forced to admire and praise the music? Do you even need to include this whole final clause (" as well as admire and praise their music")? This clause doesn't contribute to your main point.
    • Yes, he was annoyed because he had to focus on giving meaningful and intelligent critiques of the womens' skill while at the same time playing cards. I think it's interesting, funny, and shows how even an important ambassador (that info has been added) had to wait to be invited into the exclusive musica secreta, and also shows something about the concerts (that they played cards, which is odd). I've reworded it to make the connection clearer.
      • Oh! And, the Duke didn't want people simply to passively hear them, he was really excited by them and would talk about them all the time, to the point of boring people to tears apparently, so this begins to show that (although it doesn't say that it's the duke doing the forcing.) Mak
  • Speaking of your main point, this paragraph seems to be missing a topic sentence, like "The elite, hand-selected audience members favored with admission to performances by the concerto delle donne demanded diversions and entertainment beyond the pleasures of beautiful music alone." Otherwise, why include the line about dancing dwarves? It sticks out awkwardly unless it's supporting some general statement about the music, especially since it's in the Music section.
    • Ok, for now I've split out a performance section, and stolen your topic sentence. Mak
  • "After having earlier seen" - two of these four words are redundant. I've fixed it, but wanted to point it out as the kind of thing to keep an eye out for.
  • "Having seen the concerto delle donne in Ferrara, Giulio Caccini created a rival group, sponsored by the Medici family, made up of Caccini's family and a pupil, who traveled to Paris and performed for Maria de' Medici." Tony will call this a "snake," a sentence that's too long for easy comprehension, suffering from trying to include too many ideas at once. Can you split it into two sentences — and not repeat any words?
    • meh. I've attempted. Mak
      • I've tried to further streamline this. Mak
  • "There was even a rival group in Ferrara, formed by Alfonso's sister Lucrezia d'Este, Duchess of Urbino. She had lived at the Este court since 1576, and shortly after Margherita's marriage to Alfonso in 1579, Alfonso and his henchmen killed Lucrezia's lover, straining relations within the royal family." Another snake. Do you need to mention "shortly after Margherita's marriage to Alfonso"? It's distracting keeping all the players straight, and both Margherita and the marriage seem irrelevant to Lucrezia. How about "after Alfonso's marriage in 1579" or just simply "in 1579"? Why does Lucrezia's murdered lover matter anyway? Did Lucrezia start her rival group in revenge for the murder? Seems like an awfully indirect way to go about things; why not just poison someone? If the murder is relevant to the formation of the rival group, that connection needs to be clarified. If not, this whole murder affair comes across as cruft.
    • Why would you set up a group, when an equivalent group was performing nightly in your own house? This is attempting to answer that question, and add a bit of human interest at the same time. She was jealous of her young and beautiful sister-in-law, and pissed at her brother for murdering her lover. She wasn't upset enough to kill, she just didn't want to hang out in her rival's room every night. I wouldn't say it was for revenge, she just wanted to have something separate. I've tried to clarify this. Mak
  • "Barbara Strozzi is thought to be the last of the composers and performers in this style." "Is thought to be" is a weasel phrase, unless you cite a reference to confirm the uncertainty. Was she or wasn't she? How about "was among the last" or "was the last major musician to compose and perform in this style"? ("Major" would still require a citation, to avoid being POV.)
    • From Springfels. Gr. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do when my sources don't declaim everything. I've reworded it somewhat, and cited it. Mak
  • passaggi, cadenze, tirate, and accenti. What are these? The reader shouldn't have to click on a link to understand what you're talking about.
    • They're 16th century ornaments. Is that not clear? I thought giving even brief descriptions of these within the article would be too crufty. At issue is not the nature of the ornaments themselves, but that some were current, and others out of date. Oh, I see, I used the word "device" so as not to use the word "ornament" for the 5 millionth time. I'll change it to ornament. rrg. I think it makes more sense now. Mak
      • Defs added. Mak
  • "The diminutions and ornaments that the ladies sang together were written and rehearsed in advance, transforming the ornaments from improvisations to highly developed musical forms, orchestrated mainly by the composer." This last phrase seems to contradict the earlier part of the sentence. If the women worked out their own diminutions and ornaments, how could the composer orchestrate them? If the orchestration reflects a later practice that developed from the ladies' earlier improvisations, that needs to be made clear. Splitting this sentence in two would probably help.
    • I'm beginning to think it wasn't the case that the women wrote out their own ornaments. As much as I respect Springfels (who is primarily a performer), I don't see anything else to support it, and plenty of things which make it not make sense, so I'm removing that bit.
      • Still problematic, and now even harder to grasp as a single sentence now that (at my request) you're pausing to define diminutions. Would it be correct to say "Polyphonic arrangements called for the women to sing diminutions (melodic divisions of longer notes) and ornaments in consort. To coordinate their voices, they transcribed and rehearsed the music in advance, transforming these articulations from improvisations into highly developed musical forms that composers would utilize"? Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Looking over this, I realized we can simplify this: "Polyphonic arrangements called for the women to sing diminutions (melodic divisions of longer notes) and ornaments in consort. To coordinate their voices, they transcribed and rehearsed the music in advance, transforming these improvisations into highly developed musical forms that composers would utilize." (Keep "articulations" in mind as a synonym for "ornaments," though.) (Tony may still object to the word "their" being too far from its antecedent "women," but I don't see an easy fix.) Peirigill 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Duly stolen, plus another sentence to add that we don't know but think they might have made up their own ornaments in solo singing. You're right that I/we should be careful about repetition of the word ornament, but I'd like to point out that I don't think "articulation" would be a good choice as a synonym in this period of music, because it refers more to a style of playing the specific pre-written notes (as in different accents) rather than diminutions or passaggi or ornaments. I'd use passaggi more, but I think it might be too specialised.
  • The word "ornament" appeared eight times in this paragraph. Ouch. I think I've knocked it down to just one.
    • :'(
• INFLUENCE
  • "!--This wording might be too close to Newcomb--" Then reword it, if my reorganization of the paragraph wasn't enough, or quote him directly.
    • The structure and wording have changed enough that I feel comfortable removing that comment. Mak
  • "It was a powerful tool of propaganda, projecting an image of power and affluence. The concerto delle donne was so influential and often imitated that it became a cliché of northern Italian courts." This borders on POV: "powerful," "so influential," "often imitated," and "cliché." See if you can neutralize the language, or quote directly from a source that uses that language. Isn't it also true that these women's ensembles were a bit of a fad and a flash in the pan, especially as the new musical instruments available in the baroque moved the focus of musical activity from choral polyphony to virtuosic solos, keyboard, and orchestral works? I know that when I was researching polyphonic choral music for women for my early music ensemble a few years ago, I found little Renaissance polyphony for women aside from Luzzaschi. I think you should say something about the decline of this tradition as well as its heyday, both in terms of the popularity of the music and the fortunes of the courts whose patronage supported them.
    • Can I just jump up and down instead of addressing this? It's a fair question, but it's all sourced to the best possible sources. The women of the Ferrarese court and concerto delle donne are mentioned in the intros/ledes of "Viruosa" and "Soprano" in Grove, and both of these concepts are extremely important, IMHO, to the growth of opera, and other 16th century music. The instrumental music was imitating the vocal virtuosos, not the other way around. I wouldn't exactly call this music "choral polyphony", an important aspect of it was emoting madrigal texts, and although I suspect the written out diminutions didn't contain too many parallel fifths, they did contain surprising dissonances. In fact at some point Newcomb talks about how Artusi may have been referring to the practices of the concerto delle donne in his big rant about how awful new music was. Perhaps the very specifics of three women singing concerted madrigals was a "flash in the pan" which lasted full strength for at least 30 years (a long flash compared with Punk-Emo-Hardcore, short compared with Gregorian chant) but I would argue that their influence was more important and far-reaching than the specifics of the ensemble. I think, if anything, I've understated their influence. Mak (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, but you still need to remove the repetition of "It was a powerful tool of propaganda, projecting an image of power and affluence. Peirigill 19:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• GENERAL
  • The Influence section seems too short, and the Music section too long. Maybe the Music section could be dedicated to a musicological analysis of the music while practical aspects (like the card-playing and dwarf-tossing, and the availability of scores and texts) could be split off into a Performance section? I'm moving the paragraph about rival groups from the Music section to the Influence section. Adding in information about the decline of this tradition will help make the Influence section more comprehensive and less stubby.
    • You're right, I'll work on it. Mak
  • I'm still concerned about the lede. I've revamped it so it says something about each section of the article, although I suspect there are things in the article important enough to mention in the lede. Nothing should go in the lede that isn't mentioned in the main article, but Vincenti only appears in the lede, and I don't see much of the "diarists and commentators" in the main article. I suspect that AndyZ's tool was saying that you have too many paragraphs in the lede given the number of words in the article. The lede isn't too long, it's too choppy. I'll bet combining paragraphs so there are only two in the lede will remove that warning from AndyZ's review tool.
  • In general, the paragraphs seem too short and lack topic sentences. The first sentence of each paragraph should make a point which the rest of the paragraph fleshes out and supports. Here's an old test I learned back in high school: read the article top to bottom, only reading the first sentence of each paragraph. Do these opening sentences outline the important points of the article? Does the order of the material flow logically?
• Go through the article and make sure tense is consistent — either all past tense, or all present tense. Check on "the Duke" and "the duke" and other titles and make them consistent.
  • Some references have page numbers, some don't. Unless there's a really good reason, make your citations painfully easy to check. Put page numbers on all citations. Make sure their formatting is consistent.
    • This is fine now, right? Mak
  • Ideally, the first sentence of the lede and the last sentence of the main article should both have a bit of zing. When you review the lede and the Influence section, make sure these two sentences sparkle.

Whew! Peirigill 12:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Am I going mad, or is the bother of getting everything past Tony's prose tests just not worth the kudos of the article becoming an FA? I think we're all going to need extensive therapy after this, and that's from someone with shrink-o-phobia. Anyway, I've added a citation for the "biggest stars" bit for the castrati. About the no-less-than four - the thought was as there probably aren't too many parts in Orfeo, so four eunuchs would be a significant proportion of the total, but now I think about it I don't actually no know how many singing parts there are in Orfeo, as I'm not familiar with that particular opera. Could someone who knows please inform me? Cheers, Moreschi 12:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL! Having just gone through the experience of getting an article to FA status for the first time, I totally sympathize. I know I'm being a martinet, but I swear I'm doing it to save you grief later. There is little so frustrating, even maddening, than someone blithely objecting to your article on the grounds that the prose isn't "compelling, even brilliant" because you used the word "it." I'm hoping we can polish the prose so well that Tony actually supports the article right away, rather than making us scramble to meet his objections. Thanks for catching my "considerating" typo. It's bad enough I'm tearing things to ribbons and nitpicking galore, but introducing new errors is just adding insult to injury.  :-)
  • Now, to be annoying again: the citation is fine, but per the MOS goes at the end of the sentence unless different parts of the sentence require separate footnotes. I'm now concerned that the new reference (the actual info for the source) doesn't have the same formatting as the "Women in Music" entry, and the references should be formatted the same as much as possible. Either "Firstname Lastname" or "Lastname, Firstname" for both, and an ISBN number and a city of publication for both if available — that kind of thing. Also, the footnote doesn't give a page number. I'm also not sure how authoritative your source is for such a claim, but that's the least of my worries; the claim is credible, so I wouldn't have challenged your source in an FA review.
  • You just described my exact thought process with regards to Orfeo. How many parts are there total? How many child/soprano/castrato parts were typical for opera in those early days? My best advice is to cite everything, or else be willing to remove anything that isn't common knowledge or self-evident. Peirigill 13:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Whew! I thought, if anything, I had over cited this article. In short, some of the references I added at least don't have page numbers because they are either from the online version of Grove (which doesn't have page numbers, and the articles I cite are hopefully short enough that I shouldn't have to give a paragraph number or something) or from Mary Springfels' article. I'm working through your comments. I really appreciate your going through the article so carefully, Peirigill. Thanks all, Mak (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Gotcha. I'd overlooked the Grove references; that should be fine.
      • "Moo"? :P) Peirigill 20:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Moo: An expression born of a certain amount of frustration, but with the realisation that it's all for the best. Also, my white dog decided to chew on a black pen. Mak (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses to a few of Mak's comments above:

• the baroque ornaments (passagi, etc.): too crufty? I say no. One thing that this article doesn't quite achieve is conveying how they sounded. "Diminution" isn't really defined. The baroque ornaments are just nonsense words to anyone but a specialist (including to me), but they're an essential part of the ladies' style. During the FA review for Gregorian chant, I was pressed to explain exactly how a quilisma and an oriscus sound; I'm sure you'll be pressed to explain passagi.
  • Short and somewhat grace-less definitions have now been added. Mak
• Along these lines, I would really love to see an excerpt from a score. (If you have an image of the score, you might not even have to invoke fair use; the PD-Art template at Wikicommons says, "The two-dimensional work of art depicted in this image is in the public domain worldwide due to the date of death of its author, or due to its date of publication." That was the original rationale for putting up some of the chant notation. Better yet, can you get a sound file? A small excerpt from a commercial recording may fall under fair use. I have software that will turn most anything into an .ogg file.
  • I too would love these things. If I could find a facsimile I would have no qualms about using it. I'll see what I can do at the library, next time I get there (which might not be for a little while). What I was thinking of, and I don't think would be entirely honest, is if I made an edition using Newcomb's editions, although if credit were given, etc. a fair use rationale could be found. What I'd really like is to find a good facsimile and have both that and an edition I'd make, like I did with Trobairitz. I'll see about finding a short sound excerpt, I'm pretty sure there's a fairly recent recording of Luzzaschi's madrigals which looks reasonable. Mak
• "'Newcomb, who's the person who's done all the work in this area and written all the articles on all these people in Grove, and is constantly cited in other works on the period and whose book is held up as a pillar of scholarship, says Foo.' ...seems excessive." Not a problem. Just say "Newcomb says Foo" and cite it. So long as he's in the references, you don't have to give any context for your source there's a good reason for doing so. Per WP:AWW, I'd strongly recommend replacing "some" and "others" with the names of the Grove encyclopedists, without explanation, in the sentence "Some believe Tarquinia Molza sang with the group, but others say she was involved solely as an advisor and instructor." Peirigill 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, the "some" and "others" were very carefully laid out in a footnote so as to avoid accusations of weasel-ness, but I suppose it would be less awkward if I put in the names. I'm just afraid that the non-incredibly-specialist reader will respond with bewilderment as to who these two random people are. Thanks, Mak (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. I'm still thinking how best to respond to your major questions about their overall importance. I'm smarting a little, because all the POV is well sourced, but I think the importance needs to be better shown in the article, as well as the longer term effects, which I strongly believe are more than a simple "flash in the pan", although those effects did not last as identical ensembles. It was more the style of music and singing (virtuosity in the soprano voice), and the importance of women as professional singers in terms of their later use in opera, I think these things were strongly related to the concerto delle donne. Obviously I need to prove it better. Mak (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• • As for "Newcomb says foo" and then cite it, I've seen people complain about this construction, because obviously the citation gives who said foo, so saying that Newcomb says foo is redundant. I don't know. I think for a couple things you want me to put "Newcomb says foo" for, they are well established and well supported by later scholars, echoed and cited to Newcomb in their work. Should they still be cited to Newcomb even though they're often repeated? Yes. Should they be expressed in the article as just one man's opinion? I think that would be misleading. I'll continue to think about the weasel word issue. Mak (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be an imposition if I asked that people strike or otherwise differentiate the things they think have been satisfactorily addressed? I feel like I'm becoming lost in a sea of criticisms :P Mak (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ _t 01:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see anything pertinent in the auto-review, but does anyone else? I've checked the dates with Bobblewik's script and visually, and they seem fine, and I've checked the cites to make sure they're after the period without a space, so I'm not sure what it's talking about there. There are I think two which are after commas where I thought it was necessary. Thanks very much to Peirigill for striking and continuing to comment, and bon voyage to Moreschi. I'll be where I can do more work again soon. Mak (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Slightly random comment have you guys seen User:Mzajac/monobook.css/Superscript fix? It makes it a lot easier to visually pick out short paragraphs. Mak (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Format question It doesn't seem that anyone is looking at this at the moment, but I have a couple questions I would appreciate input on. Firstly, the order of "appendices" at the end. The notes section is so large and completely uninteresting that I think it should go at the very end of the article. The references section is more likely to be at least glanced at by the semi-casual reader and so should go above the notes. The question then is the external link and the navigation box. In my mind, the navigation box is like a centralized and laid-out "See also", and so should be above the reference section. Also, because the article is so name-heavy, and many of the names are not familiar at all, I think the navigation box should help a little during the reading of the article, and so should not be banished to the no-man's land of post-notes. This still leaves the question of the external link, which I'm not sure what to do about. It's the only other centralised online reference to this group, and it's pretty good, although I'm not sure at this point it has a ton more than Wikipedia does. Should it follow the WP:GTL and follow the notes? or should it go somewhere people will actually look? I don't want to split up the notes and references, but I also don't want to place an external link above the references. </blather> Does anyone have opinions? Should I blithely follow the GTL, or should I try to think about actual functionality? Mak (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may be completely Machiavellian, I'd say adhere to WP:GTL until you get your bronze star, and then revise the order later if you still feel it would significantly improve the artice to do so. Peirigill 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

• Secunda pratica question

I'm really surprised by the claim that the concerto delle donne led directly to the secunda pratica. My understanding was that Monteverdi attributed the roots of the secunda pratica to de Rore in particular, and secondarily to folks like Willaert, Marenzio, and Wert. I don't recall him mentioning Luzzaschi or the ladies' consort, even tangentially. I guess I'm wondering whether "leading to the development of the seconda pratica style" is worded too strongly. "Contributing to the development" seems more plausible. Even the phrase "important in the development of the madrigal" gives me pause; sometime around Marenzio, the madrigal hit its technical peak, after which it began to become something new and baroque, and less of the old Renaissance genre. Luzzaschi's music didn't "develop" the madrigal to its finest realization so much as it hastened its demise as the new baroque forms gained popularity. Maybe "the evolution of the madrigal" would be a more neutral and more accurate wording. Peirigill 23:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you're right about the POV, it probably needs to be softened a bit, I was just trying to get the idea out there. I'm having a bit of trouble really understanding the full picture of this period, which is probably why the article continues to have serious structure problems. I've been trying to get a better picture by reading the Grove article on Madrigal, which is quite good, but confuses me in a couple aspects (the pertinent bits are by Newcomb, btw. It's a little annoying for everything to be by one guy, but that's the way it is). In the section on Poetry and the Madrigal it says "The other important new style of poetry at the end of the century has nothing to do with the rise of opera. The Ferrarese school of..."; however, in the section "The 1590s: the rise of the ‘seconda pratica’." it says "These two new types of text brought with them a new style, which caused the Italian madrigal without continuo to have a final period of several decades of splendid bloom.....The most important composers involved at the outset were Marenzio, Luzzaschi and Gesualdo." And the new style referred to is the seconda pratica. and then "These anti-canonical devices might violate norms of spacing, of rhythmic or melodic structure, of part-writing or of harmonic combination. As justification for the new liberties, the composers (notably Luzzaschi in 1596 and Monteverdi in 1605) pointed explicitly to the need to reflect the style and emotional content of the text." So.... it seems like Luzzaschi at least was pretty instrumental in the development of the seconda pratica. I'm a bit confused about how there could be this strong tie to the seconda pratica and absolutely no relationship with opera.

In addition, Newcomb sets out a case that although Marenzio, Wert, and Monteverdi were not at the Ferrarese court, they had strong ties to it. Wert was having an affair with Tarquinia Molza, for heaven's sake! Marenzio and Monteverdi definitely visited the court and heard the ladies, and Monteverdi wrote in imitation of their style. From The Madrigal at Ferrara "In Artusi's dialogue of 1600, Monteverdi's halfhearted defender traces his loose treatment of dissonance to the practices of ornamental singing." (pg. 83) So we have Artusi's opinion- but sometimes critics are more perceptive than proponents of a cause. As well "Wert's seventh book should be considered as much a Ferrarese as a Mantuan product." (pg. 83) and once again from Grove "Luzzaschi was the oldest of the composers involved, and in some respects he was, with Rore and then Wert, the prime mover."

I'm a bit confused by your characterisation of the madrigal hitting it's "technical peak" etc. Remember that there were two completely separate types of madrigals in Italy in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries. Newcomb's POV seems to be that the "luxuriant style" of the 1580s led in some ways to the more declamatory and dramatic seconda pratica type style of the 1590s. Marenzio was involved in this move towards the seconda pratica style, so I'm not sure where you think this "peak" is. I'd say the development of the madrigal from a Renaissance form to a Baroque form is a development, if any shift in musical style can be called a development (which is debatable). Now, Monteverdi didn't declare the name of this style until 1605 - does that mean we can't call earlier music "in the style of the seconda pratica?" I think we can, because Monteverdi was just codifying a musical movement which was already well on its way.

Sorry for the long thing, I think you have a good question, and I'm really trying to think it out by writing way too much. I guess I think the movement from a Renaissance style to a Baroque style is really important, and it's also interesting, and I get the strong impression that the concerto delle donne had a significant influence on the music which was being composed during this shift, and the short reason for that is that the most important composers of the "shifting period" wrote music which was dedicated to the ladies, they visited them, they heard them, they imitated them (Caccini isn't mentioned here, but he wrote about half the music of the actual performance of Euridice, and clearly consciously imitated them). Is this becoming clear in the article? Is it beginning to ring true for anyone else? Mak (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• • OK, I've moved this to FAC, because I'm going to have to return my main source soon (I got it on ILL so renewals are awkward). Thanks very much for everyone's help, and if you want to make further comments, you can do so at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Concerto delle donne. Again, thank you very much, Mak (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)