Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Rinaldo (opera)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Rinaldo (opera)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This article has been recently expanded, with the aim of getting it to featured standard in time for it to be TFA on 24 February, the 300th anniversary of its premiere. Unfortunately, this project has been somewhat derailed by two other requests for that date's TFA, on behalf of articles already featured. But I live in hope, at least until Raul schedules the date. Time is short, and I really need to have this at FAC by 10 February, so I am hoping for some fairly rapid reviews. However, the quality is all-important, and I won't nominate it to FAC until I am sure that it meets the FA criteria. Your help would be very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley
  • Lead
  • Background
    • "(per Dean and Knapp)" – I always prefer good English to bad Latin, and would write "according to" instead of "per" here.
  • Compositional history
    • "assisted by the co-option into" – odd noun, I think
    • "from Handel's dramatic cantata…." – the sentence would flow better, perhaps, if you moved "Handel's" back to read "other numbers from Handel's earlier works…"
    • "a striking illustration of the seeming vandalism with which Handel could treat his works in revival" – I suppose you can't really add that this just shows how prissy Dean and his galère are – but it does.
  • Early performances
    • "A further 12 performances were immediately scheduled; at the end of this run, popular demand was such that two more were added. Notwithstanding this reception, the strains of financing this grand production" – the word "this" comes up a lot here and might perhaps be beneficially pruned.
    • The Spectator – links to wrong manifestation of the publication of that name – the one you have linked to began in 1828. Surprisingly, there doesn't seem to be a WP article on Addison and Steele's rag.
    • The mysterious Dublin production seems hardly worth mentioning, I'd say.
  • Music
  • Recordings
    • "made in 1977 by CBS" – I'd be a bit careful with "CBS" for a record. That was the British name for the label, but Americans called it "Columbia" (long divorced from English Columbia).

That's all that I could find. Balance, tone, refs and pictures all seem to me just what they ought to be. Front page stuff all the way. Tim riley (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Tim. Most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions from Gerda Arendt
Comments from GuillaumeTell

I've only got as far as the end of the synopsis. I've made a few corrections. Four points:

  • Per Gerda Arendt's suggestion above: the Venice theatre where Agrippina premiered can be found in List of operas by Handel if you want to include it
  • Role table: columns need re-spacing, e.g. too much space for voice-types & not enough for notes
  • Synopsis: For clarity, WP opera articles generally display the place, time and Act/Scene settings on separate lines, with settings italicised, see, for example Matilde_di_Shabran#Synopsis.
  • "Lascia ch'io pianga" has (I think) a bit, or a lot, more history than mentioned here. Isn't it in Agrippina? And I remember an instrumental version in Almira when the BBC broadcast it last year.

More tomorrow, probably. --GuillaumeTell 22:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the theatre for Agrippina and adjusted the column widths in the Roles table. I will introduce the synopsis in the recommended fashion. "Lascia ch'io pianga" was not in Agrippina; the use of the tune (as distinct from the aria) in Almira is mentioned in the Music section. Thanks for these points, keep them coming if you can. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lascia ch'io pianga has its own article where further content can be added. I think the aria need not be addressed further in the Rinaldo article.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wehwalt

I made a few changes directly, free feel to revert. I've only done half the article as yet but here's what is left:

  • Background
"long after the composer's departure" So the reader knows you are not being poetic and referring to his death, suggest a rephrase.
"From these". My high school English teachers frowned upon using "this" and similar words all by themselves as subjects of sentences. I have long since realized how limited their advice was, still, I bring it up.
well-bred audiences familiar with italian opera. Perhaps also through travel, is that mentioned?
"his reputation on the basis of Agrippina was considerable." If this was not true for England, yet, I would suggest inserting "elsewhere".
  • Compositional history
"In the years up to 1717," I would include something like "following the premiere" as you have been dealing with pre-premiere issues.
I would also mention assuming these revisions through 1731 were done by Handel, to say so.
  • Early performances
I would imagine that the subsequent performances of Rinaldo were under another impresario besides Hill?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the conclusion:

"available admixture creates interesting opportunities in the preparation of modern performing version." Shouldn't this become plural at some point or else gain an "a"?
"The popular success of Rinaldo was assisted " Which production?
  • Music
"Sadie remarks that these options, sanctioned by Handel, can justifiably be exercised by modern producers of the work." I guess my question is, does this really say anything? After all, the continued and deplorable absence of alto castratos from the opera house would readily excuse a modern producer (by the way, I assume you mean one wanting to be authentic?)
"It is likely that no Italian opera heard in London to that point had been supported by such grand orchestral forces." Phrased this way, it does not have much of a bang to it (yes, that is a fireworks joke). Can I suggest building the sentence around the word "unprecedented"?
"According to Hicks the dominant character," I would suggest mentioning early on in this sentence that you mean musically.
"Dean and Knapp note one tiny but telling musical detail; an alteration to the third note of the melody when it returns in the 15th bar." The significance of this is unclear to me.
  • Editions
The earliest known score. OK, it dates from around 1716, but it was used for the Hamburg performances, which you have said were in 1715?
" by the Queen's" I would splurge on the word "Theatre" to follow this, assuming that is what was meant.

--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the above. I have generally followed your suggestions and revised the text accordingly. No mentions in sources of familiarity with Italian opera through travel. I've knocked out the Sadie sentence you highlighted as uninfomative, and I've removed the sentence that puzzled you over the alteration in "Lascia ch'io piangia", the significance of the alteration is better explained in the aria's own article. On the scores used in Hamburg, the 1716 one was the basis of the 1720s Hamburg revivals (I've clarified that). No specific information is given about where the 1715 Hamburg score came from, but I would surmise it was made up from the 1711 performing score. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking from Smerus
  • In the lede:
para 2:'the opera scene', yechhh, why not just 'opera'?
Para 3: ' Rinaldo, with its spectacular vocal and orchestral passages' would be clearer than 'with its spectacular vocal and orchestral passages, Rinaldo'
  • Background
para 2 - 'With much of Hamburg still evident' - what does this mean exactly? In the music, the orchestration, the libretto, the stage treatment, the length of the intervals :-}.......?
  • Music
'Dean and Knapp note one tiny but telling musical detail; an alteration to the third note of the melody when it returns in the 15th bar' - as I recall, this is just a passing note (or couple of passing notes - don't know how it's notated) replacing a repeated note - which would be more or less standard decoration for the recurrence of a melody - I agree it sounds very nice, but is it really a 'telling' stroke of the composer? Anyway, as there is an article for this aria, perhpas such detial is better dealt with there.

That's all I have time for before going to work...--Smerus (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I have adopted them all, including the removal of the "telling musical detail" which another reviewer has also queried. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addition from Gerda (thanks for taking the above)

I dont think the link to Halle as a city is so helpful to the reader of the opera article. I suggest to link to the Opernhaus Halle, and if not here, somewhere else in the article. Also: if you say Göttingen, you should say Hannover, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two more things (I've corrected some typos)
  • Role table: surely it isn't necessary to supply both English and Italian for unnamed characters? Italicising information about named characters is useful, but "Araldo, a herald? To the untutored eye, it might seem that there's a character called Araldo, who is a herald. Elsewhere, e.g. Otello#Roles, the character is just "A herald". "A woman", "Two mermaids" and "A Christian magician" will be just fine without the Italian. NB: "La donna" means "The woman". The other role table point is that when there is a chorus and/or actors/dancers/whatever, these are usually shown in a colspan row at the bottom, as in the Otello example. For Rinaldo, Grove Opera has "Mermaids, spirits, fairies, officers, guards, attendants".
  • It might be worth mentioning at the bottom of Performance History that Glyndebourne Festival Opera is mounting the opera for the first time in the year of its 300th anniversary.
  • That's all from me. Good luck with the FAC. --GuillaumeTell 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Future from Gerda
Scores Deutsche Händelgesellschaft

Further comments from Tim riley : I asked a Handel opera admirer of my acquaintance to comment, and apart from generally admiring the article he comments:

  • Intro, para 2: 'the next several years' Why not say 'thirty'. Handel's last opera Deidamia dates from 1741 (Wikipedia article currently only a stub).
    • Handel's operas were not as successful during the 1730s and early 1740s. An arguement could be made that he no longer dominated the London stage during that period (although some would say he still did). The ambiguity of "several years" avoids the potential nit-picky arguement while still pointing out Handel was for a lengthy period the leading force in opera in England.4meter4 (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the text doesn't say "several years", it says "several decades", which I think can be considered as taking us as far as 1741. Like 4meter4, I think it better not to refer to a specific period of 30 years, since Handel's influence wasn't uniform for this whole period. His main dominance was the 1720s, as I think is clear in the main text. In the 1730s fashions began to change and Handel became less popular, though I don't think any figure of remotely comparable stature arose to displace him. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background, para 3: 'Queen's (later King's) Theatre'. It might help to demystify the change of name, referred to again later, if it was made clear it changes according to the reigning sovereign.
  • Synopsis: The Poussin painting of Armida and Rinaldo shown against Act 2 strikes me as a bit gratuitous and 100 years out of date. If we must have a painting, why not Tiepolo's, painted for the Residenz in Würzburg in the 1750s, ie more nearly contemporary?
    • I'm not sure that I agree with you about the Poussin. Yes, it's 17th not 18th century, but Tasso's poem, the fons et origo, was 16th century. My main reason for choosing this particular image, however, is because there are uncertainties over sources and/or licencing on each of the other options listed on the talk page. I'd rather be safe when in the FAC cauldron. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3 of Compositional History, para 3: 'Following the premiere n 1711, in the years up to 1717' - even if the missing 'i' is put back the repetition of 'in' is clumsy. How about 'In the years between the 1711 premiere and the 1717 revival...'; in the same para 'revision' in line 3 should be plural. Tim riley (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rinaldo_(opera)/archive1&oldid=1047889801"