Talk:Adagio in G minor/Archive 1

Archive 1

2007 opinions

The true is, that "The fragment contained only the bass line", no more! Any 6 bars of melody! It was just a basso (or basso continuo) part! All another was composed by Giazotto. Gerea-en 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Evidence?

Wikipedia claims that the Adagio in G Minor is a hoax, that it was entirely composed by Remo Giazotto

with no original material from Albinoni. However, Giazotto himself has attested that the work was reconstructed, or constructed, based on real fragments of an original work by Albinoni from the Dresden State Library. See this link on the reconstruction of the work based on the fragment:

http://www.carlfischer.com/Fischer/pdf/YAS61sc.pdf

Essentially what Wikipedia is saying is that Giazotto is a liar and a cheat, but that instead of trying to pass off an exquisite masterpiece written by someone else as his own work, Giazotto supposedly did the opposite - write the masterpiece himself and then claim someone else wrote it. Since Albinoni was no longer famous by the end of WW2, this claim by Wikipedia is highly suspect. No doubt Wikipedia has the evidence to back up its claim that the work is a hoax. Giazotto, a highly respected musicologist, has stated his case. The burden is now on Wikipedia to debunk it.

Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.186.27 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked very long at this, though keep in mind that there is no monolithic 'Wikipedia' making decisions; editorial decisions are done by consensus (or failing that, by unilateral caprice, I suppose). This is mentioned in passing in 'The Cambridge history of seventeenth-century music' / By Tim Carter, John Butt / Cambridge University Press, 2005 / ISBN 0521792738, 9780521792738

"Page xxv... of tragedy virtually interchangeable with Barber's Adagio, or Albinoni's 'Adagio' (not in fact by Albinoni but by Italian musicologist Remo Giazotto)." [1]

Another perspective is here (not sourced) [2] --Skandha101 • 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The claim needs stronger referencing. I found the following snippet views from Google Books. From The Flutist Quarterly, volume 13 (National Flute Association, 1988), I found this quote: "The present edition is a version of the famous Adagio in G minor for strings and organ, an original composition prepared by Remo Giazotto and based on two thematic drafts and one figured bass by Tomaso Albinoni") From "Vivaldi" (Alan Kendall, 1978): "It is perhaps unfortunate that the work that made the name of Albinoni heard so much by the public at large a few years ago - an Adagio in G minor for Organ and Strings - is not in fact by him, but mostly by his biographer Rcmo [sic] Giazotto". Marasmusine (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

neo-baroque?

I removed this adjective and it was quickly put back, so I'll put my mild objection here. The "neo-" is a nod to the likelyhood that this work was mostly written in the 20th century. I understand that. But in my mind, "neo-baroque" incorporating baroque influences into a more modern palatte... something like Respighi's The Birds, or Stravinsky's Pulcinella. This piece is more of a "pastiche"... written so close to the Baroque style as to convince people that it actually was written two hundred years before. In my opinion, that's not neo-baroque. A minor quibble, though, so I'll archive it here. --DavidRF (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no pastiche, as its baroque-ness is really superficial. Its structure and form have no baroque precedents. It sounds "sort of" baroque.--Galassi (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor quibble: the baroqueness is not superficial; not that the modern techniques added are superficial either, but are they so fundamental that one would say that had Albinoni access to them, he would not have incorporated them in a way similar to that presented in the piece before us? It seems to me something like this supports DavidRF and the success of the traditional attribution. But one thing is certain: if this be a hoax, let's have more of them!70.89.232.180 (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 70.89.232.180

BCC slur relevant?

I removed the italicized part (by me here) of this little paragraph today:

• The piece has also permeated popular culture, having been used as background music for such films as Gallipoli, television programmes and advertisements to the point of becoming a cliché for self-consciously "sad" moments.

It seems to me that WP is not in the business of reviewing classical music or of speading that type pf BBC opinions around, ending an article like that to influence music lovers, negatively or positively. The reference should probably also be removed, as I assume it was given to put some clout behind that slur. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Slur or not, I feel the article should address the tune's psychological effect, since it is clearly a melancholy piece and can instil feelings of sadness, or even depression, in the listener - a fact which is, for instance, exploited directly in Renaissance's vocal version "Cold is Being". Lee M (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

---

It doesn't even sound like Albinoni, whose authentic(ated) music never sounds as depressed as this piece ('the most beautiful ever written', to quote the silly juvenile writer further up). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Arguably Albinoni

Please don't confuse two questions, whether Giazotto actually found a manuscript fragment from Albinoni (uncertain?), and whether this work is largely composed or at least inspired by Albinoni (close but probably so). Certain parts seem to be obviously in the style of Albinoni and a close derivative of his work, so it seems arguably appropriate to call this Albinoni's Adagio, and certainly Giazotto felt so. (Even if it was a "hoax," the work would still be an imitation of Albinoni.)

Also the title of the article should be "Albinoni's Adagio in G minor," since that is the way the work is known.

The Adagio is not inspired by Albinoni, it contains absolutely no Albinoni material, there is no discernible Albinoni influence, and no one considers it to be "Albinoni"

in any way, anymore. Case closed.--Galassi (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Please see new citation added for sources on similarity of piece to other albinoni work. Note that it is certainly not "no one": the question is open according to several commentators. While I do not claim to be a musical expert, it seems the dispute over attribution is a live and legitimate one. The dispute over the manuscript is distinct from the question of how much of Albinoni in style or subtance was borrowed by Giazotto; no one has ever questioned that Giazotto made substantial additions of his own, but still the question is whether it is better called Albinoni's or Giazotto's adagio (or both men's). Reasonable people differ about that, but there certainly is a strong dispute. --added by 70.89.232.180

THat citation is a personal blog of unknown individual, disqualified per WP:RS.--Galassi (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the analysis of the music provided is one which any one can then perform in a listening test; the attribution to Albinoni itself is widespread, and claiming that it is uncontested that Giazotto composed it without any borrowing from Albinoni seems clearly wrong. It seems to me you are engaged in reverting edits (two back to back complete reversions of all my edits) to establish a non-neutral point of view. WP:POV. So I reverted your undo of my edit for violation of reversion policy. However, I agree need to find better analysis cite per WP:RS guidelines. Perhaps the way forward is to separate out the question of similarity of work to other Albinoni (the traditional attribution to Albinoni attests to the success of the imitation) from more particular though very interesting questions about Giazotto's role in a musical hoax (the manuscript issues). Regarding the WP:RS, the source is making a claim about his analysis of the music, not making technical claims regarding the manusript. It seems to me this similarity is one thing that contributed to the success of the hoax by an admirer of Albinoni (if there was a hoax), but that also means that the work may be said to be derivative from Albinoni and the traditional attribution has an arguably good foundation. Further note that the expert sources above cited even by the pro-Giazotto view include qualifiers present in my version and lacking in the reversions by Galassi.--70.89.232.18070.89.232.180 (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180

There are no expert sources to the contrary. and read up on Musical hoax.--Galassi (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, even some of the sources on your side, or rather on the side of claiming that Giazotto composed "most" of it, introduce qualifiers you remove. Also, you are conflating two disputes: the manuscript, and the influence of Albinoni in the work, which goes directly to the question of balancing attribution claims. As far as the cite, I removed it for now. Note that three back to back reversions of all my edits to establish non-neutral point of view appears to be a violation of the reversion policy. The "hoax" article you give just cites back to this as far as I can see: how does it establish new evidence on influence of Albinoni in the Adagio? --added by 70.89.232.180, 70.89.232.180 (talk) 03:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180

1. It is against wiki rules to use weasel words like "some experts". you must be specific who claims what, with exact names. 2. As of now the expert consensus is that the Adagio has NOTHING to do with Albinoni, aside from the ascription.--Galassi (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly be good to have a list on each side; but how is it a good idea, for the sake of avoiding a weasel word, to go to falsehoods? For it is false to say that "no one" thinks any part of the adagio is in the style of Albinoni's other works; on the contrary, for most of the time the piece has been around, it was generally considered to be exclusively by Albinoni. The expert consensus is NOT that the piece has "NOTHING" to do with Albinoni: you keep on conflating two separate questions: the one regarding the manuscript (the hoax), and the question of whether the piece imitates Albinoni. The success of the hoax, if there was one, suggests that the piece to most listeners does successfully imitate Albinoni, and even the experts your side cites use weasel words like "most" describing the probable source. I think you are missing the forest for the trees: there is at least a strong resemblance to what no one questions as Albinoni's work here, even if Giazotto "wrote" the entire thing. Giazotto would have gotten nowhere trying to pull this off as the work of Beethoven etc. I don't see any evidence of an expert consensus that the piece is not influenced by Albinoni, nor any expert consensus that the piece is not properly called "Adagio in G after Albinoni" or in the style of Albinoni. The traditional attribution has a good defense, and this issue (as opposed to the manuscript/hoax question) is open and NOT settled. To clarify, I'm inclined to think Giazotto wrote almost all of it myself, but that is different from saying that some attribution should not be given to Albinoni, or that Giazotto was not consciously imitating and deriving a great deal from Albinoni's works, --and I can't see how you can seriously claim that it is uncontested that "NOTHING" of Albinoni lives in this Adagio, especially given the particular reception this piece has enjoyed. In fact, you have cited not a single piece of expert opinion that says there is no imitation of Albinoni in this piece, whereas I at least have cited the analysis of listeners which show parts of it are derivative from Albinoni, as well as the historical reception of the piece. How does one conclude from this that you are correct in asserting that it is universally agreed that "NOTHING" of the Adagio must be attributed to Albinoni? My position at least keeps the question alive, whereas you seem to be deciding things ahead of time for the reader, breaking the WP:NPOV policy and I think the best spirit of wikipedia--to err on the side of including the best arguments for each position, rather than pre-selecting the winner for the reader. In any case, I believe it is against wikipedia policy to unilaterally revert all of someone's edits three times in a row, absent "vandalism" or some egregious violation. The only real violation here is a position you disagree with: that the Adagio is influenced by Albinoni, and so that the attribution has some reasonable basis. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180--70.89.232.180

You must find at least one reliable scholarly sourse for your daft theory. Otherwise it will be removed, per WP:RS.--Galassi (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what part of this you are objecting to? Please try to respond to my specific points. Regarding "daft theory," the Adagio had in fact commonly been attributed at least in part to Albinoni, which required some sense of a similarity in the work. Furthermore, you do not provide any source that claims the Adagio has no musical similarity to any part of Albinoni (let alone "universal" assent!), whereas I have given sources to the contrary (albeit laymen); though I would think the point is fairly obvious given the historical reception of the piece. Your reversion is now the fourth complete undo of my edits, violating wikipedia policy, and you also do not respond to the WP:NPOV objection. On both these counts, I am justified in undoing your blanket reversions. Finally, you are bootstrapping one narrow thesis regarding the manuscript/hoax into an unproven and implausible claim, i.e. if you will, a daft theory, that the Adagio has absolutely no similarity to or derivation from anything in Albinoni. Even taking it as a hoax, the hoax is still an imitation of Albinoni. I am not saying that the piece is not substantially different from what Albinoni would have or could have written, but I am denying your assertion that (1) there is "NOTHING" at all in the Adagio of Albinoni--nothing by way of derivation, imitation, or inspiration--and (2) that this is universally agreed to. I can, if you wish, go line by line and word by word and defend each of my edits. For example, I would like to get rid of "primarily" in the first sentence ("primarily composed by"), but I can't because some of the expert sources cited in your side say that it was "mostly composed by Giazotto" rather than "entirely." If you wish to be very strict, you can turn that to "primarily or entirely," which I had as one of my prior edits (that you of course undid). In general, regarding the style of the piece, from what sources I could find on the web, some regard it as a "pastiche" of elements similar to Albinoni and non-Albinoni elements, others regard it as entirely and easily distinguishable from Albinoni, and still others regard sections as derivative or imitative of Albinoni. I don't see any evidence for your point of view that there is universal agreement that the piece has "NOTHING" to do with Albinoni, even among the experts. So this is definitely a WP:NPOV violation. And I might add, Giazotto admired Albinoni, and you may be overlooking possibilities arising from that aspect of the "hoax." 70.89.232.180 (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

There appears to be a bit of semantic confusion here. Pastiches, inspiriations and imitations don't count when researching authenticity. Of course, Giazotto wanted to create the illusion that Albinoni wrote it but the simple question is "how much of this did Albinoni actually write?" Unless there's a score or fragments of a score in Albinoni's hand then its not Albinoni.DavidRF (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There are no such fragments, according to the Dresden library, documented in the article.--Galassi (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing that was written by Giazotto; however, the question in dispute is not who wrote the piece, but whether any parts are imitative of Albinoni such that the attribution is entirely wrong. Commonly it is said as being "after Albinoni." I agree that "arranged by Giazotto" is incorrect, as it was written by Giazotto. The manuscript/hoax question is NOT the same question as whether the piece "borrows" elements from Albinoni such that at least some attribution to Albinoni is defensible. I believe it is an illegitimate non-neutral POV, given the reception of the piece and the analysis of certain passages, to claim that it is universallly agreed that there is "NOTHING" of Albinoni in this Adagio. I therefore would insist on edits that do not pre-decide this important point in advance for all readers, especially since others do find some noticeable similarities with Albinoni's works.70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

We're getting deep into semantics here. Sometimes "after" implies there is an original work that's being referenced but its been heavily modified... often into a completely new style. Like Britten's Soirees Musicales (after Rossini). This is more of a straight pastiche. If he was honest from the start, he may have put "in the style of Albinoni". I wouldn't have a problem with that. But because of the hoax it might be misleading to use that phrase.DavidRF (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the success of the hoax testifies at least that many considered it plausibly in Albinoni's style, somewhat imitative. Let me put it this way: if I copy the principal passages and style of Shakespeare's plays and successfully for some years palm it off as Shakespeares's, does that mean that it is correct to say that Shakespeare deserves no attribution? Again, the hoax question is separable from the question of influence or imitation, or so it seems to me, and that means some partial attribution is arguably due to Albinoni. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

No. "Attribution" means he wrote it. He didn't. There's lots of mention of the hoax and Albinoni in the article. Readers will not be confused about Giazotto's inspiration or intent. What are you proposing needs changed again?DavidRF (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually ever use "after Albinoni" in the edits; but on the other hand, it is widely thought that there is influence of Albinoni here, though of course not written by him! I propose that should be made clear -- whatever technical terms you think are correct are fine. I agree we should not get bogged down in semantics. If the work arguably imitiates Albinoni, then there is some basis for crediting Albinoni in some way for the Adagio. That is certainly the point others have made before me. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180 P.s. I am not asking for anything to be changed!! I am asking that the current version NOT be reverted! 70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180 Again (to be perfectly clear): I am the one who authored the version with "whatever inspired him" etc., simply to make clear that writing is different from the question of what he was looking to in writing it, which seems certain at least to me, given Giazotto's life's work and given the piece itself, to have been Albinoni! The question is why not let the current version STAND; which Galassi continually reverts. i.e. I agree with you current version is FINE. I am the one arguing against changes, i.e. REVERSIONS, from the version you (DavidRF) have been looking at. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

Oh, I see. I disagree your edits, though. "primarily", "apart from claims regarding the Adagio's similarity to other parts of his work", "others claim that sections of the piece are derivative from Albinoni in defending the traditional attribution." Those are simply wrong. They are uncited and they blur the authenticity issue (which you do not dispute). Those should be reverted. There's plenty of mention of Albinoni in the rest of the article.DavidRF (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Primarily" is due to the expert sources cited still hedging and saying "mostly"; I would prefer to get rid of it but felt constrained by the wording of some of the sources and wikipedia policy to keep it--but you can get rid of it. The other changes I disagree with but perhaps I can revise to make acceptable. The point is there are cites to laymen on the similarity (which were reverted for reasons I understand), BUT there are no cites given to the alternative view, that there is no similarity of the Adagio to Albinoni--and I'd add this is contrary to the well known historical reception of the work. I can try to make clear that this does not impact the question of who wrote the piece. There is mention of Albinoni otherwise but only to deny that he has any influence, which seems to a non-neutral POV and actually incorrect given what we know about Giazotto and about the piece itself! The question of the influence of Albinoni in this piece is a MAJOR question, not the same as the hoax question and not one that should be pre-decided by the editors. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180 --ok tried to clean it in a direction acceptable to all. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

I think the hoax and influence questions are indeed extremely related. That Giazaotto was able to pass the work off as Albinoni's certainly implies influence. I don't think any more needs to be said about that. The denials need to be strong so as to make it clear to the reader that he didn't write any of it. But of course there was "influence" otherwise no one would have been fooled. See all the other musical hoaxes like Adélaïde Concerto which was passed off as a Mozart Concerto for many years. Of course, they had Mozart in mind when he wrote that pastiche but it must be made clear that Mozart himself did not write a single bar.DavidRF (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree that we need to make the probable hoax clear (I mean that the manuscript probably didn't exist; it was never denied I think that Giazotto wrote most of it), but I think that is clear as it stands. I think we need to give some respect to all those who are struck by the similarity to Albinoni, which is very plausible given the piece, its reception, and Giazotto's own life and admiration for Albinoni, without any way undermining the very strong evidence that Giazotto wrote all of it. I think the current version does that, but let me know if you disagree. I would add a hoax is not necessarily a bad thing, at least not to all of us (assuming the piece is a good one). 70.89.232.180 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180 . .- @DavidRF, thank you for restoring my "inspiration" phrase. (though I still think on the whole this gives insufficient credit to the reception of the work and to the point of view concerning its perceived and historically successful borrowing from Albinoni, so this is somewhat unbalanced or unfair to the memory of Giazotto and the Adagio, or not representing that perspective. but i'll leave the discussion here for future readers. I would underline Giazotto's admiration for Albinoni's works.) 70.89.232.180 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

I didn't restore anything. I think you could use a break from this page. At this point, you don't disagree with much in the article but seem intent on making these fairly trivial rewordings. misattributed/attributed, musicological/scholarly. Of course Giazotto admired his works, he was his biographer and creator of his systematic catalogue of the works. You're worried about refuting opinions that no one has.DavidRF (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(my apologies, it looks like you preserved my phrasing in the recent edits but did not restore it--must have clicked on the wrong versions in history.) Not much disagreement otherwise, except regarding the implications of the admiration, not always present in hoaxes, let alone such a high quality and original one. I thought "scholarly" was more accurate and less "encyclopedic" in wording based on the sources. misattributed/attributed--this is certainly very minor, didn't notice it in editing; I think correct either way (ie.. "popularly but incorrectly" attributed). Regarding the scholarly (or musicological) consensus; I looked up the cites and some of them still say "mostly" Giazotto (not entirely). It is not important to me, as I said not much disagreement there, but I was trying to follow wikipedia policy. I corrected the year written only because the sources cited do not list 1958 as the year written, only the year copyrighted and published; that may I admit be nitpicking but not incorrect. As far as my being concerned to "refute opinions no one has," I don't think that is at all fair: from my point of view I was trying to keep open a legitimate point of view that otherwise is suppressed (i.e. NPOV). I do, based on the piece itself and the historical evidence, strongly disagree with this, and I am not alone in disagreeing: "The Adagio is not inspired by Albinoni, it contains absolutely no Albinoni material, there is no discernible Albinoni influence." (I would say, as I said at the outset, for a number of reasons probably if not certainly inspired by Albinoni.) Thanks for your time and your moderation, which was very helpful in resolving the main point. I think we could all use a break from this page! 70.89.232.180 (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

---

It was written by Giazotto, there is nil evidence that any part of it was written by Albinoni, it doesn't sound at all like (any work actually written by) Albinoni, ergo it's not "Albinoni's adagio" or any such name. Simples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Albinoni's Adagio in Religious Ceremonies

Apologies, did not mean to mislead the readers of this article, but it is true that Albinoni's Adagio is played during Greek Easter at the island of Corfu by the "Philharmonic Society of Corfu". Kindly see the following link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMKoXvCHxqQ Deep apologies form Greece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cv97035 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Musical similarities

It might be worth saving these two older edits from oblivion. They were (justifiably) undone because they contained original research, but they are IMHO interesting enough to be preserved at least on the talk page. -- 109.85.32.176 (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some resemblance between the theme of this Adagio and the beginning of the theme of the Adagio sostenuto of Louise Farrenc's first trio op. 33 for piano, violin and cello, dated 1841: the descending melodic shape itself, the harmonic progression I V V I I IV, and the principle and place of a melodic answer. There is one more note in head of the theme in Farrenc's (Eb - her theme is in Cm), and the rhythm and the answer are different in Giazotto's; he continues with a sequence whereas Farrenc comes back to V. This can be heard for example in Trio Estampe's performance at 1'01, to 1'14. -- Anne Ripoll 14:11, 8 August 2012 [[3]]

On a side note, if you listen to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart's Horn Concerto No. 4 in E-flat major, K. 495, I. Allegro Moderato, you can hear a very familiar tune from what is known as Albinoni's Adagio (a little over 3 minutes from the start). Since Mozart lived after this piece is allegedly being attributed to Albinoni, there is a probability that Mozart borrowed it. However, if Giazotto was in fact Adagio's composer, then he was basing his Adagio on Mozart's Allegro Moderato's fragment. -- LoneTiger1962 23:07, 13 March 2013 [[4]]

Did the Albinoni fragments exist after all?

Nicola Schneider's Master's thesis of 2007 (written in Italian) sheds new light on the provenance of the Adagio. It doesn't offer a final answer, but it shows that Giazotto did use some kind of source. The following is an edited Google translation of the relevant passage (Nicola Schneider: La tradizione delle opere di Tomaso Albinoni a Dresda, tesi di laurea specialistica, Facoltà di musicologia dell'Università degli studi di Pavia, Cremona 2007, pp. 181–186; footnotes are from the original, additions by me are in small type and {curly brackets}):

But there is another version of the origin of the Adagio, supplied by the same Giazotto, which differs considerably from that of 1958. According to the friendly communication by Remo Giazotto's last assistant and academic collaborator, Dr. Muska Mangano (Verona), the aged musicologist, near death, explained the genesis of the Adagio again, prompted by an article by Piero Buscaroli {published on 22 September 1992}. The following is Muska Mangano's letter:

{...} Remo Giazotto tried to tell the journalist {Piero Buscaroli} the genesis of his Adagio in G minor, explaining how it was born out of pure fun and certainly not with the intention that it could serve as an accompaniment to his monograph on Albinoni. [...]

{From Giazotto's letter to Buscaroli:} “[...] Having returned from the Aosta Valley with the University Batallion in '36, I immediately devoted myself to my Master's thesis. Torrefranca had given me the name of Albinoni for a book to be published in his series New Ways of Musical History. But war events ruined his project. However, he did not reject my suggestion to do research on Albinoni, and in January '40 the instrumental work of the dilettante veneto, numbered and unnumbered, had been studied by me. The effort had been enormous, but at that time the book was ready for a publisher. I decided to get rid of all the useless material the hardworking German librarians had sent me, and between this I also found the paper containing the four bars of the theme and the figured bass. I amused myself with realizing a melodic continuation of that thematic cue. I seemed to return to the time when Paribeni, master of harmony, had given me similar tasks. [...]”

According to this testimony, Giazotto received the fragments of the Adagio at the very beginning of the war without giving notice in his monograph published later. The discrepancy between the six and the four bars of the first violin mentioned in the versions of 1958 and 1992 respectively should certainly not be taken literally because at that time Giazotto was already very ill. Questions addressed to his heirs about the existence of material relating to his book left in their possession have not produced any results so far, therefore the allegations reported are not verifiable. But shortly before Giazotto's death, Muska Mangano undertook to finish his work on Clementi, and among his papers she found related studies and notes, including a modern photocopy of the fragment that had been the source of the Adagio in the edition of 1958. {...} The appearance of this document in Muska Mangano's possession must be considered an important fact since that copy is the only foothold of the original Dresden source.
 The paper is a recent photocopy of a modern manuscript bearing in the top right-hand corner a stamp stating unequivocally the Dresden provenance of the original from which it was taken. Since, unfortunately, it is not a frame like those that constituted Giazotto's research material, namely positive images with writing in white on a black background (as seen reproduced in the monograph of 1945), it is difficult to evaluate this document. It should be noted immediately that the copy does not reproduce the basso continuo in print of which one has read many times, but its manual transcription in a handwriting that appears to belong to the first half of the twentieth century. The transcriber was evidently German – as indicated by the title {Albinoni’s Trio Sonate G moll} – and wrote down the entire figured bass, inserting the six fragmentary bars of the first violin in their place on the staves. Unfortunately, the photocopy has cut up the writing on the stamp, which thus is not decipherable, but it should be reconstructible by comparison with similar contemporary documents; the words may have contained the name either of the photo studio or of the library that is running the photograph. You can read very well the words below: “Dresden. – Lichtbild | von”. It is unclear what the doubly underlined number “7” refers to, which is located directly below the stamp; it could possibly refer to the number of bars (77 without the 'soli' in bb. 20/21), but this would be an unusual position for a number – at the top and not at the end of the piece. In any case it cannot be the beginning of a signature because in the Dresden system introduced in the years 1926–30 signatures begin with the word 'Mus.' followed by the composer's identification number (Albinoni, in this case, was given the “2199”).
 Apparently, a manuscript copy of the printed source was first drawn up in Dresden, in which the melodic fragments of the first violin were then inserted, and from this manuscript the photograph was taken that came to Giazotto. From some source, however, he must have heard about the printed bass part he mentions several times. It is not clear why the Dresden library did not send a frame or a microfilm of this printed part, as they did for all the other sources. When Giazotto sold all the photographic material relating to his work on Albinoni in 1940, he could not foresee what turn the war would take. At that time, the scope of devastation the British fleet would cause in the German city shortly thereafter was unimaginable for all, which is why, perhaps, Giazotto could not calculate the value of his collection of microfilm, which preserved, at least in content, many sources that are no longer available because they burned or were dispersed.
 Talbot and many others have “disattributed” the Adagio to Albinoni – remember that Giazotto never claimed that the piece was all original – on purely stylistic grounds. The stylistic categories to determine the authenticity of the Adagio should be applied, if anything, only to the figured bass. To facilitate a comparison of the score in Giazotto's edition, the basso continuo attested by the Dresden copy and the authentic trio sonatas by Albinoni, there will be a diplomatic transcription of the page of music at the end of this chapter. When he began to elaborate the figured bass, Giazotto was perhaps mindful of the example of Nikolaus Heinrich Gerber, who under the auspices of Johann Sebastian Bach had worked out an accompaniment on the figured bass of the sonata Op. VI, 6, which Spitta reprinted in the appendix to his work on Bach. A comparison of Muska Mangano's copy and the Ricordi score reveals that the bass without the figures in Giazotto's score can be found almost unchanged in the left hand of the organ. One notices slight rhythmic variations in support of the new melody and some advances designed to emphasize the essentially “romantic” character of Giazotto's piece. The original melodic fragments of the first violin are not marked as such, while many expressive and agogic indications (which at that time were not a rarity even in historical-critical editions – think of Malipiero's editorial practices) are by the modern author. The harmonic progress required by the original figures is largely respected, even if the high concentration of 9–8 suspensions, which creates a highly pathetic atmosphere, has no equivalent in the genuine trio sonatas by Albinoni.

--Schneid9 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@Schneid9, Thank you very much for finding valuable new information. At a quick glance, this seems to provide renewed support for giving some credit to Albinoni for parts of the Adagio, but, regardless, it is very welcome as new evidence. I hope this meets the wikipedia requirements as an expert source, at least given the scant sources we have. I will wait to see what others think or how they incorporate this into the main entry. This should open or widen the debate a bit! 70.89.232.180 (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

Ok, no one else had added the evidence provided by Schneid9, so I made some revisions. Feel free to adjust as needed, but I urge strongly that we keep the WP:NPOV policy in mind! 70.89.232.180 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180 .. @Galassi: Please stop your practice of complete reverts of someone else's edits; in this case, clearly againstwp:npov--primary source of high or at least solid evidentiary worth provided; you simply should not be deleting good evidence that albinoni was a source. If you wish, please add some good evidence on your side; that is best for discussion and thinking. But deleting reasonable opposing points of view is bad for the soul. WP:NPOV, WP:RV. 70.89.232.180 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)70.89.232.180 --70.89.232.180

@Schneid9, this is amazing and fascinating stuff! As one who loves, and plays, the music of Tomaso Albinoni, I am very pleased to read this well-researched trail of evidence which suggests that even a small part of the Adagio in G Minor may have been genuine Albinoni material, however brief and fragmentary. Having read some of Talbot's book on Albinoni, I was sure that the trail had gone cold, but now a valid lead appears to be illuminated.

Where can I read the original source: Master thesis, Nicola Schneider - La tradizione delle opere di Tomaso Albinoni a Dresda? Is it available online?

Thanks. J.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@J.D.: Unfortunately, the thesis hasn't been published at all; only the table of contents is available online. I ordered a photocopy of the chapter on the Adagio (pp. 179-188) from the Saxon State Library. The author Nicola Schneider wrote me in September 2009 that he was about to publish an article on the genesis of the Adagio, but as far as I can see it hasn't appeared yet. Interestingly enough, Schneider has also rediscovered and published Albinoni's violin concerto Co 3, which was thought to be lost for a long time. --Schneid9 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

@Schneid9: Please make available the thematic fragments and figured bass from the Mangano copy provided by Nicola Schneider. They could be uploaded to imslp.org as they are certainly in the public domain. Then we can all judge for ourselves what was Albinoni's and what was Giazotto's in the Ricordi publication. --rdtennent (talk) 4:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems as if this has been done in the meantime: [5]. -- 109.41.10.71 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not the case. What is found at that file is a typeset score, with the figured base in large notes and the melody in small notes. While it is claimed to have been made from a photostatic copy of the photograph in the Dresden library, it could just as easily have been made from Remo Giazotto's score.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

@Jerome Kohl: It is the case. I typeset the transcription reproduced in Nicola Schneider's dissertation. That dissertation is available from Dresden if you want to see it. Whether the transcription was the source of Giazotto's composition or vice versa is indeed an open question but I certainly didn't make the score from Giazotto's.-R.D.Tennent —Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Meaning no disrespect, nor to doubt your integrity, but I cannot judge from your typeset version whether the the original appears to have been copied in a genuine 18th-century hand, whether the figuring of the bass is in a characteristic Italian manner, whether the staff lines were printed on the paper or drawn with a rastrum, or any of dozens of other features that might indicate something of the provenance of the source. Not can I tell whether the writing is hasty, like a sketch, or careful, as might be found in a fair copy. In short, we cannot deduce anything at all about what may have been from Albinoni and what may have been from other hands, including but not limited to Giazotto. Even seeing the photocopy in the thesis would not, of course, enable any judgment about the actual age of the paper, type of ink, and other factors involved in an authentication of this source, but at least the main features of the calligraphy could be examined.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevant sections of Nicola Schneider's dissertation (translation above) make it clear that it is not an 18th century Italian transcription: "a handwriting that appears to belong to the first half of the twentieth century. The transcriber was evidently German." R.D.Tennent —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

In that case, without a provenance for this manuscript, it might just as well be considered a simulacrum based on Giazotto's edition.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Does the Dresden "stamp" add any plausibility to this? since it would, if true, corroborate what Giazotto had said concerning his discovery (or alleged discovery). If not, I take it you are arguing that this document would be a fabrication and part of the hoax. Either way, thanks to @Schneid9 for finding and translating this section of Nicola Schneider's thesis.65.96.160.196 (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, this may be premature, but I wonder if we need to qualify the absolute statement that this is a "musical hoax" at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Tomaso_Albinoni (the talk section there says better to discuss here). This wouldn't change the confidence that Giazotto wrote most or almost all of the piece, but if there is some support for his "discovery" account, then I'm not sure one should state so absolutely it's a musical hoax.65.96.160.196 (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)(MnlCls)

I think we must beware of two extremes: (1) dismissing the Adagio as a pure hoax, (2) considering the Mangano discovery as solid proof of the authenticity of the fragments.

(1) Giazotto never claimed that the Adagio was all Albinonian. The original preface clearly states that it was "composed" by Giazotto on the basis of a printed figured bass and 6 bars of the first violin, and the cover of the Ricordi edition gives Giazotto's name in much larger print than Albinoni's. Still, the preface calls the work a "reconstruction", which probably suggested a greater degree of authenticity than was actually warranted, so that later editions and arrangements sometimes omitted Giazotto's name altogether (e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]). And, of course, the fact that the Adagio was often recorded together with real Albinoni works also contributed to the general impression that it was authentic (a few examples from the past: I Musici, Karl Ristenpart, Alain Boulfroy, Jean Witold; more recent ones: [13], [14], [15]).

(2) As R.D.Tennent said above, Nicola Schneider neither claims nor believes that the sheet of music discovered by Muska Mangano among Giazotto's papers is an 18th century manuscript or even an Albinoni autograph. Instead, he places it in the first half of the 20th century (because of the handwriting) and in Germany (because of the German title "Albinoni's, Trio Sonate G. moll" and the fragmentary stamp "Dresden. Lichtbild von" [= Dresden. Photograph by]). If this interpretation is correct (and I see no reason why it shouldn't, except perhaps for the rather awkward spelling of the title – "Albinonis Triosonate G-Moll" would have been more normal), it might be defensible to conclude that Giazotto did base his Adagio on a source, though we still don't know (a) who wrote the manuscript, (b) if the manuscript was held by a Dresden library or if it was only photographed in Dresden (the Saxon State Library may well have been right in their denial that the manuscript had ever been in their possession!), (c) if Albinoni was the composer. What I don't believe is that the manuscript was based on Giazotto's score: The only person who would have had a reason to do so was Giazotto himself (because he was constantly bothered about his source), so if he really made such a masterful forgery (including the idiosyncratic stamp!), why didn't he produce it during his lifetime? Or does anybody think his assistant Muska Mangano made it to restore Giazotto's good reputation? Then why did she give it to a student of music for his unpublished Master's thesis instead of making it available to the general public?

All things considered, I would suggest that (1) the POV expression "hoax" should be removed from the article and (2) the passage about the Mangano fragment should be worded more carefully: The discovery of the fragment doesn't really indicate "that Albinoni was his source" but only that a source seems to have existed. -- Schneid9 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to me to be a balanced and well-considered assessment. From the past history on this, it looks like there has been controversy. I'll see if there are further comments on this before venturing an edit to (1) remove the term "hoax" and also (2) remove the suggestion that the Mangano fragment is evidence of Albinoni, as opposed to some source that Giazotto may (or may not) have in good faith considered to be Albinoni. Of course anyone may do edits whenever he wishes, but it is probably safer to wait and see if there are further comments.24.199.158.206 (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)(MnlCls)

The Nicola Schneider citation fails basic VERIFIABILITY. Moreover, searching for Ms. Schneider yield no credentials. I see no reason to give it any benefit of a doubt.--Galassi (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The work is published and available. Credentials, as with any scholar, can be checked with the university. This is an important find that needs to be mentioned so that others may evaluate. Let me know what exact requirement you think is not being met here--it seems to me very questionable not to have this evidence out there when someone has been accused of a hoax. 166.147.121.160 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)(MnlCls)

@Galassi: You don't seem to read your talk page. As I wrote to you ten months ago, Nicola Schneider is a man, not a woman, and I am not Nicola Schneider (I might as well assume that you are Mara Galassi). That aside, what credentials do you expect? Nicola Schneider obtained his doctorate (summa cum laude) in 2010 and is now working with RISM Switzerland. It is true that his Master's thesis on Albinoni hasn't appeared as a book, but it is available in European libraries (cf. table of contents). If you doubt its existence, I can send you the relevant chapter via e-mail. -- Schneid9 (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not Mara G., and who I am is irrelevant here. Your book is OR, and also WP:FRINGE. It is not cited anywhere else.--Galassi (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is "fringe" or "pseudoscience" (as described at WP:fringe). Instead, it is the discovery of a new primary source by a scholar on an area that has never been clear: whether the fragment was simply fabricated. That Giazotto wrote the Adagio is not in dispute; whether his account of a fragment or source has a basis does not seem to be well established. WP:NPOV is a serious worry when the question goes to an accusation of fraud (hoax). (as explained before, this is not "original research" because the cite is to a university thesis publicly available from state libraries and the university.) (On the question of publication, WP:Verify seems to define a publicly available work as a publication in broad language: "Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form)." Based on that, I feel there can be no objection, at least for this reason.). 166.147.121.173 (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)(MnlCls)

@Galassi: My book??? Will you please refrain from your conspiracy theories? If I were Nicola Schneider, I wouldn't have waited four years before presenting my research on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't have needed Google to translate it from Italian into English! I happen to have the same surname as Nicola Schneider (Schneider is the third most common name in Germany), but my first name is Michael, if that satisfies you. -- Schneid9 (talk) 00:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there some agreement about this:

(1) That we should make clear that the Mangano/NicolaSchneider fragment has NO known connection with Albinoni, other than Giazotto's own claim that the fragment was of Albinoni.

(2) This is more complicated: are we agreed here that there is not scholarly consensus as to the existence of a hoax, but only consensus as to Giazotto's authorship of the Adagio? We have three pages that probably should be roughly consistent (though with different areas of focus), if things are being done right: the Adagio page, the Albinoni page, and the Giazotto page. The Giazotto wiki page ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Remo_Giazotto ) says that Giazotto gave two accounts of the Adagio; in the second he took full credit for the piece, but in the first account he had claimed "not to have composed" the Adagio but merely "arranged" it. That suggests a hoax (the wiki page implies his second account proves the first one was a lie), but on the other hand, that wiki page also seems to say that in the first account Giazotto said he had arranged the Adagio only out of a mere fragment. That would suggest (even in his first account) that there was NOT a hoax--that he said, I found a scrap of music, and based only on that scrap, I give you this whole Adagio (leaving aside for the moment the important question as to whether the scrap has any connection with Albinoni).

To say it another way, I am wondering whether we agree that the sources support the paragraph above that begins "(1) Giazotto never claimed that the Adagio was all Albinonian."), or is the consensus (prior to the discovery of the Mangano fragment) instead that Giazotto had pulled a hoax by claiming the piece was almost entirely from Albinoni. Do we know what the sources say about the proof on the hoax: what did Giazotto himself say or knowingly go along with that supports the hoax--did he claim any basis for the work larger than "a fragment" at ANY time. (Of course there are a number of intermediate positions.) I want to make absolutely sure there is not a misunderstanding on this.

(The Adagio wiki page gives a slightly different flavor, but one that does not necessarily imply hoax: "In his account, Giazotto then constructed the balance of the complete single-movement work based on this fragmentary theme." The hoax is implicit only in the fact that "no official record of [the fragment's] presence in the collection of the Saxon State Library" was ever found--since in this wiki version Giazotto says "the balance," i.e. nearly the entirety, was his own work; and the evidence from Nicola Schneider suggests that despite the missing library record, there may have been a fragment after all, so there would not have been a hoax even in this respect.)

Let me put the question this way: can we agree that Giazotto's first account, according to all or most of the reliable sources, does not suggest a hoax UNLESS the fragment is fabricated. What I want to clarify is to what extent in the first account Giazotto gave or did not give the impression that the work was not his own but Albinoni's, for anything beyond the mere fragment. That would affect how much space and weight on the wiki page we should give the Nicola Schneider discovery, and how much weight and space to the hoax view, or other intermediate positions.

I realize this is an obscure subject and we are debating a small point, so it may time a bit of time for adequate input to come in, but thanks for any pointers. MnlCls (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is no doubt that the Adagio is Giazzotto's own composition, regardless of how many purported bars he quoted.

The Mangano fragment is currently a rumor, no one has seen it. In any case it is irrelevant to Giazzotto's authorship of the Adagio, which is neither in the style nor character of Albinoni. And any rumors of fragment are largely irrelevant to the nature of the Adagio, as WP:FRINGE.--Galassi (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@MnlCls:

(1) Not quite. The manuscript itself also gives Albinoni's name. Of course this doesn't prove that it is authentic, but we might at least say that Giazotto didn't just invent the connection to Albinoni.

(2) It's probably difficult to speak of a "scholarly consensus" at all – how many scholars have seriously examined the question? Even Michael Talbot, the leading Albinoni scholar of our time, discusses it only briefly in his two books on Albinoni (BTW, Galassi: I'm not Michael Talbot even if I have the same first name!). In his 1990 monograph he writes:

Asked to identify the composition by Albinoni that first sprang to mind, most music-lovers would probably name the Adagio in G minor for strings and organ, a piece originally published in 1958 and ever since a mainstay of record catalogues and chamber orchestra programmes. This is ironic, for the piece's actual composer, the musicologist and Albinoni scholar Remo Giazotto, has never claimed that the Adagio is based on more than a tiny original fragment; moreover, the existence of even that fragment has frequently been doubted since all efforts to trace it have failed.

— Michael Talbot, Tomaso Albinoni: The Venetian Composer and His World, Oxford 1990, p. v

I don't know any scholarly publications that downright call the Adagio a "hoax". Instead, several reputable sources don't even question the existence of the fragment, but only its Albinonian origin. To cite a few examples:

• Carolyn Gianturco: Article "Giazotto, Remo" in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, 2nd ed., Oxford 2001 (accessed online): "His [Giazotto's] elaboration of a fragment supposedly from one of Albinoni's sonatas has become famous as 'Albinoni's Adagio'."
• Article "Albinoni, Tomaso" in Oxford Dictionary of Music, 4th ed., Oxford 1996, p. 12: "The popular Adagio for org. and str. in G minor owes very little to Albinoni, having been constructed from a MS fragment by the 20th-cent. It. musicologist Remo Giazotto, whose copyright it is."
• Eleanor Selfridge-Field: Venetian Instrumental Music from Gabrieli to Vivaldi, 3rd ed., London 1994, p. 319: "The string parts were fabricated by Giazotto on a figured bass of uncertain origin."
• Marcello Sorce Keller: What Makes Music European: Looking Beyond Sound, Lanham, MD 2012, p. 172: "his [Giazotto's] composition (in which only a short fragment of a bass line by Albinoni is to be found) only owes its popularity to its connection to the name of the Venetian composer".

The statement in the Wikipedia article on Remo Giazotto that he "subsequently revised this story, claiming it as his own original composition" was inserted in 2009 by an IP without any documentation; I have never encountered it anywhere else, and it should be deleted immediately.

In any case, as you say, MnlCls, we should bring the three relevant articles into line. -- Schneid9 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

@Galassi, No one is disputing that Giazotto composed the Adagio. The question is, as I tried to make clear, whether there was a hoax, and the status of the fragment claimed by Giazotto. Let me say that again: regardless of whether Giazotto's account is correct or a fraud, everyone here agrees that Giazotto composed the Adagio (except possibly for the tiny fragment). The Mangano fragment is not a "rumor"--see above paragraph starting with "(2) As R.D.Tennent said." We are not talking about an Italian manuscript, but a modern transcription with a Dresden stamp that may have been the source for Giazotto and seems to agree with his account. However would you have an objection if this were added with all the requisite qualifications. The view being added is not "this is what happened period" but that a verifiable, reliable source has discovered this document and that it is attested by Giazotto's assistant--with all the qualifications about what claims are and are not being made concerning the document. I don't see how this contradicts the other sources, but please by all means cite sources that contradict this. I'd very much welcome evidence that Giazotto fabricated the fragment, or any other sources supporting the hoax view -- this is very different from the view that Giazotto composed the Adagio for everything but the fragment -- which no one here denies (crossing my fingers we have agreement on that). Please see @schneid9's source cites in previous paragraph, and by all means list any source cites for your position. This is the way Wikipedia should work, and I certainly am not going to add anything that is not supported by reliable sources or delete anything that is.MnlCls (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@Schneid9: Thanks for your work finding and listing those sources; that is very helpful. I am in substantial agreement; let me see if I or anyone else finds anything contrary in the next few days. (But I think the Giazotto page change I will make soon, if someone else hasn't made it because of lack of a cite. I remember reading that the "second account" may instead be a reference to Giazotto taking out a copyright in his own name years later, but I'll see if I find a source for that.) The foundation for the hoax view on the fragment is this I think: (1) that there was no record of it in the Saxon State Library of Dresden, as the wiki page says, and (2) that it was never produced in his lifetime. For (1) we have the sources, the letter from the librarian; for (2) I haven't seen sources, but I've assumed that this is correct, and I don't know what explanation Giazotto gave, if any, for not producing it--presumably someone asked him during his life for the fragment? Of course I agree the wiki page should not say hoax if reliable sources didn't draw that conclusion; I'm just giving the probable basis for such a view. MnlCls (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just discovered another completely different version of the genesis of the Adagio. In a review of the I Musici recording, Michael Talbot wrote in 1972:

An untraced fragment of unconfirmed attribution to Albinoni allegedly reported by Torrefranca to have belonged to an unnamed private collection that eventually passed to an unidentified state library in Leipzig: this is the original source on which Giazotto’s very free reconstruction is purportedly based. Need more be said?

— Michael Talbot, The Musical Times, Vol. 113, No. 1555 (September 1972), p. 874

I'm not sure where this version comes from. It could be from the cover of the Philips record, but its ultimate source would probably be Giazotto himself. According to Lugert & Schütz (1998), there was a correspondence on the sources of the Adagio between the Saxon State Library, several musicologists and Ricordi from 1968 to 1978; I suspect the above could have been the version Giazotto (or Ricordi) gave then. Basically, however, this version is reconcilable with the Mangano/Schneider discovery:

• Torrefranca was Giazotto's doctoral supervisor; he brought Albinoni to his attention, and he is known to have visited German libraries in 1938-39 looking for Albinoni material.
• The Mangano fragment doesn't claim to be from a Dresden library. Perhaps it was really from a private collection and only photographed in Dresden.
• What remains mysterious is the reference to Leipzig. According to Nicola Schneider (p. 186f.), the Milan Conservatory Library holds a not-for-sale copy of the first edition of the Adagio containing an "Arranger’s Note" by Giazotto in which he similarly claims that "the printed figured bass with the fragments of the first violin is preserved at the State Library of Leipzig". There is no "State Library" in Leipzig – did Giazotto mean a different library in Leipzig, or did he confuse Leipzig and Dresden, or was he deliberately obfuscating things, hoping that nobody would notice?

However that may be, the Torrefranca track is probably worth following. What about this wild theory: Torrefranca found the printed bass part with the six manuscript bars of the first violin in some private collection, copied it (this would also be an explanation for the strangely un-German spelling of the German title), had it photographed in Dresden and gave the photograph to Giazotto, who later photocopied it. The original then disappeared in some library, where it is still waiting for rediscovery. (No, Galassi, I'm not going to insert this theory into the article.) -- Schneid9 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

@Schneid9, Thank you, I hadn't known about that separate line. We can mention the Torrefranca claim as part of the puzzle, as it is sourced by Talbot, if we include Talbot's reservations and implicit conclusion ("Need more be said?"), which I take to be that this shows Giazotto was coming up with a cover story. I'm a little puzzled as to what Giazotto said when his source was requested directly, as I assume it was--I take it he didn't produce any source, but what did he say about why he couldn't produce it?; but I can't find anything on that direct, simple question, which would have resolved a lot--it could be something only in Italian of course. Did you see this, from the Giazotto talk page: according to Carolyn Gianturco (whom you mention above), Giazotto in his 1962 biography of Stradella fabricated his sources:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1mPrDGN3bpQC&q=giazotto#v=snippet&q=giazotto&f=false

On Nicola Schneider, that reference must be removed, as @TransporterMan points out per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, unless his analysis also appears in the dissertation -OR- the master's thesis is cited in the scholarship. (I wonder if Nicola Schneider has followed up on his original thesis.)

Hopefully there is a way of editing this that puts in allowable sources and gives a coherent sense for what may have happened, sourced facts for different yet credible views. It is not in a good state now but it may be there has to be more scholarship to clear up some of the loose ends. It was especially helpful to see the original preface and the history of later editions of the Adagio that you provided; that gives me a much better sense for the foundation of the two possible tracks here: (1) misleading impression deliberately fostered by Giazotto, or (2) no fraud, but only a confusion over the extent of the fragments.MnlCls (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that you are mentioning it, I do remember Carolyn Gianturco's devastating remark about Giazotto (I even think the IP who put it on the Giazotto talk page was me, but that was before I heard about the Mangano fragment!). In any case, this is a heavy blow for Giazotto's trustworthiness (which should perhaps even be mentioned in the Giazotto article itself; as far as I can see, Gianturco has elaborated on this scandal in her 1994 Stradella monograph, to which I don't have access, however). I don't know what exactly Giazotto answered when he was asked about the sources of the Adagio – the article by Lugert & Schütz (1998) doesn't give any information on this. Perhaps he claimed that he had sent the manuscript back? Still, I wouldn't use the word "hoax" here, especially since Giazotto never asserted that the piece was all original (as e.g. Marius Casadesus and Fritz Kreisler did with their hoaxes). Perhaps we should follow Talbot's line, i.e. citing the "official" version by Giazotto and then expressing doubts about the authenticity of the alleged source (I think these doubts remain even after the discovery of the Mangano fragment – after all, we still cannot be sure if the fragment was [a] really Giazotto's source and [b] really Albinonian). The only thing we should be cautious about is the claim that no trace of the purported source has ever been found – after the discovery of the Mangano fragment, this just isn't true any more, though we are not allowed to mention it. -- Schneid9 (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable; we should correct to give the actual account by Giazotto and what he claimed about the piece, so far as we have it sourced, and so remove "hoax." And we can't state that there is no trace of the source, or perhaps only with some sort of qualification (no trace that is publicly or properly authenticated?). At the same time, the Gianturco deserves more prominent mention in the Giazotto article. There are still a few days left to expire on the lock on Albinoni due to the edit war, so I'll give more time before trying changes to any of the three articles. It's an interesting situation given that the Adagio is such a striking piece, if perhaps heavy. This deserves editors who know something about Giazotto's life--particularly access to his private papers.MnlCls (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

@Schneid9. Thank you for your research and contributions on this difficult topic. Reading through what you wrote, I thought it worth mentioning a couple of issues for further consideration:

1. You mentioned that both Giazotto and Giazotto's doctoral supervisor Torrefranca reported that "the printed figured bass with the fragments of the first violin is preserved at the State Library of Leipzig". As you correctly point out, there is no "State Library" in Leipzig. However, it would appear that the nearest thing to it is the German National Library (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek) in Leipzig, which was inaugurated in 1913. This may be what Torrefranca and Giazotto were referring to. It may be worthwhile to place an inquiry there regarding the alleged Albinoni fragment, similar to the inquiry that was previous placed at the Saxon State Library (with no results).

2. You quoted from the excerpt from Nicola Schneider's thesis the following sentence:

"To facilitate a comparison of the score in Giazotto's edition, the basso continuo attested by the Dresden copy and the authentic trio sonatas by Albinoni, there will be a diplomatic transcription of the page of music at the end of this chapter."

I was just wondering what was the result of the comparison between the basso continuo attested in the Dresden copy and those of Albinoni's authentic trio sonatas. Is their a definite similarity and correlation? If so, it may add a degree of credibility to the claim that the Dresden copy is ultimately based on an original Albinoni fragment.

3. The fact that the source of the Dresden copy is not an 18th century Italian manuscript but an early 20th century German manuscript does not, in my opinion, invalidate the claim in the manuscipt title that it is Albinoni's composition. We do know, for instance, that J.S. Bach wrote at least two fugues on Albinoni's themes and frequently used his basses for harmony exercises for his pupils. Could this manuscript be a copy of the figured bass line from an exercise or fugue that Bach (or some other contemporary German composer) extracted from one of Albinoni's trio sonatas, for musical teaching purposes? Just an idea.

JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.103 (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts, regarding my point #1 above, the "State Library of Leipzig" to which Giazotto and Torrefranca were referring could possibly be the Stadtbibiliothek Leipzig, or Leipziger Stadtbibliothek..."City Library of Leipzig". I suppose it's not implausible that they confused the German word for city, "Stadt", with the word for state, "Staat", and took it to mean "state".

Interestingly (though of no direct relevance to the subject at hand), there is a website dedicated to Bach that mentions the following: "J.S. Bach evidently also knew Albinoni's Sinfonie e concerti a cinque Op. 2 (1700), since there is a continuo part for the second concerto in J.S. Bach's hand in the Musikbibliothek der Stadt Leipzig."

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Lib/Albinoni-Tomaso.htm

JD

@JD: Thanks for your helpful comments.

1. A confusion of Staatsbibliothek and Stadtbibliothek seems quite possible. In the Milan source cited by Nicola Schneider, Giazotto speaks of "la Biblioteca Statale di Lipsia" – he may well have misunderstood the German name and then translated it incorrectly into Italian. (A confusion with the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek seems less likely to me because its Leipzig facility was simply called Deutsche Bücherei until 1990 and it didn't collect manuscripts, but only new publications.) As to your suggestion to ask the library about the alleged Albinoni fragment, it would probably be worth a try, but I'm afraid we wouldn't be allowed to mention the results in the article because it would be "original research".

2. As far as I can see, the comparison between the basso continuo attested in the Dresden copy and those of Albinoni's authentic trio sonatas wasn't carried out by Nicola Schneider at all. When he wrote that he would provide a transcription of the fragment "to facilitate a comparison", he apparently just made a suggestion for future research.

3. That's another idea probably worth pursuing, but again, without a scholarly source we won't be able to mention it in the article. Nicola Schneider even speculates that the Adagio might be a fragment of one of the lost trio sonatas op. 11 ... -- Schneid9 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the possibility of transmission from a twentieth-century manuscript from Dresden, it is not entirely implausible that such a manuscript may have existed. SLUB Dresden has a register of manuscripts lost in WWII (Kriegsverluste), and this register lists two such lost manuscripts containing Trio Sonatas by Albinoni, both in E Major. The entry for the first can be viewed here, and that for the second can be viewed here. They appear to have been copied by Alfred Richter from sources at SLUB Dresden itself, with (perhaps unsurprisingly) the figured bass realised for the piano. The source used for the second manuscript (a copy of Op.3 No.2) survives, and has been digitised by SLUB Dresden, visible here.

Alfred Richter (1846-1919), a pianist and composer, taught at the HMT in Leipzig, and perhaps the manuscript in the photocopy owned by Giazotto was also in the hand of Richter. Now, even if such a manuscript existed and was the same as that reprinted in Schneider's dissertation, that does not in itself prove that this rather extraordinary passage is by Albinoni, which I for one would be inclined to doubt. --Irishmaestro (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Orson Welles' use

Hi, I'm keeping reverted my addition about Orson Welles' use of the Adagio in The Trial (1962 film). What source would be satisfactory to maintain the information? Is IMDB alright? It is common knowledge so it'd be very easy to find a source. --Nazroon (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

No, IMDb is not a reliable source (q.v.), except for the existence of a film; see WP:CITEIMDB and WP:IMDB-EL. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned IMDB as an alternative, since the original source was the soundtrack record on Amazon. What about that? --Nazroon (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Another editor who reverted that edit, remarked: "No mention in the source" (Amazon). I didn't check that then, but now I did and it does indeed mention it. I suggest, though, not to use your original Spanish-language link but https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06VYHGBQZ when you decide to add Welles' The Trial again. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)