Jump to content

Talk:Broken consort

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Morley consort"

[edit]

See [1]. Badagnani (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is a performing ensemble named the Morley Consort. (I did know that, actually.) Is there a point here?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly; "call for name of the person who calls this ensemble a 'Morley consort'". Badagnani (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do you have a source for the person who uses this name as a general designation (as opposed to a specific performing ensemble), or not?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a Google Books search showing various usages. Just browse through them and see what you find. Badagnani (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reference is all I want, but where, exactly, did you put this? I can't find it in this article, and the "weasel inline" tag is still in place on the statement that needs this reference. Lyle Nordstrom says somewhere (I will add this as soon as I can find the source) that it was contemporaneously referred to sometimes as a "consort of six", and Warwick Edwards (in the New Grove article "Consort") says the simple word "consort" appears to have been used in the late 16th century exclusively for this instrumental combination. (I have my doubts about this, but until I can find a source that contradicts him, I must bow to Edwards's pre-eminent position in this subject.) Naturally, present-day usage may be an entirely different matter, as for example in the use of the term "consort song" to refer to a song for solo voice accompanied by an ensemble ("consort") of viols.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see what you are talking about. You mean the bare external link you provided on this talk page. Well, that was what I responded to already. There are dozens of references there to recordings by the Morley Consort, directed by David Munrow. There are also dozens of references to "The Morley Consort Lessons", which is the way in which Morley's publication is commonly referred. There are also a handful of cases where the name "Morley" is followed by a comma or a colon, after which comes the publication title: "Consort Lessons". What I fail to find is a source referring to this instrumentation as "a Morley consort", or the two words in question being used as a unit modifier (such as "the Morley-Consort instrumentation").—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my first post. Badagnani (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When asking a question, please do the editor taking the time to assist you by answering your question the kindness of actually reading carefully through the links; if you would have do that, you would have found the following, which answer your question:

Links:

Badagnani (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Badagnani (talk) 02:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

  • "The Neapolitan Mandoline" by James Tyler, Early Music, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr., 1977), pp. 255-259 (reference on p. 257).

Badagnani (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you kindly not waste my time asking me to wade through hundreds of mainly inappropriate references? Please just put the requested citation into the article. I have got better things to do with my time, thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watch your tone! Those are all specific references above. Kindly take the few moments it would take to actually look at them, as a serious WP editor might. Badagnani (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen gentlemen, I was unaware of this discussion but I have the same problem - first because I do not expect to be reverted out of hand, second because I cannot find reference to the term "Morley consort", still less to the idea that this was the only or main meaning of the phrase. I do agree, Badagnani, that your references show the term in colloquial use among modern experts, but not that this is what "broken consort" primarily means or that the term was ever in general use. Redheylin (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are provided above. Are there not two editors who do not wish to actually take the time it would take to actually look at them? Badagnani (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely flummoxed here. If these are sources, why are you posting them here instead of adding them to the article? I'm a comparative newcomer to Wikipedia, but in my experience thus far, when an editor finds a source, he/she puts it into the appropriate place in the article, rather than posting it to the talk page for prior consensus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so I have now found James Tyler's article (or, rather, his letter to the editor), referenced above. In context, it reads: "the virtuosic melodic lines of a Morley Consort part. . . ." While this could be taken to refer to any composition for this combination of instruments, it seems much more likely to me to mean "one of the virtuosic lute parts from Morley's Consort Lessons". Certainly it is not an unambiguous documentation of the use of "Morley Consort" as a synonym for the "Englisch Consort" (as Praetorius termed it).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two websites, Lyle Nordstrom's from North Texas and the Morley review are not ambiguous at all, though websites are not as good as books or articles. The 2007 book by Taylor and Lavagnino is better than Tyler, but not entirely satisfactory because of the use of "scare quotes". Still, why not put in Lyle's and the Morley sites for now, and we can review the rest at leisure.—Jerome Kohl (talk)
Badagnani - you reverted again, although I contacted you and explained you had thus made unaccounted-for changes - for example, removal of the image. Please make changes separately, accounting for each. The main point is; that the precise configuration associated with Morley is not the primary meaning of the term. To make this clear I am going to insert the general definition from the Oxford Companion to Music, pointing out here that the particular ensemble in question is not there mentioned. Redheylin (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I owe you an apology, Badagnani. Having now perused the offered sources more carefully, I can see that you were simply unsure of them, and wanted an expert opinion. The North Texas University site blurb, on closer inspection, seems to be saying that their resident ensemble is called "The Morley Consort" (taking over the name from the late David Munrow's group of the 1970s), and is not using the term generically. Only Mark Sealey's CD review of 2007 is unambiguous, and so I have now inserted it at the appropriate place in the article. In the meantime, I have discovered that the term "consort-of-six" is Ian Harwood's, not Lyle Nordstrom's, and have inserted that term, as well, now that I have found the source. I have also clarified several other points (most importantly, the distinction between "broken music" and a "broken consort", and the dates associated with each), and added a number of important sources to the Bibliography. It remains to add remarks on the Walsingham and Cambridge (Holmes) consort books, which substantially predate Morley's publication (1588 and ca. 1595, respectively).
I am becoming concerned at this point about a criticism offered earlier, namely that this article is apparently not meant to be exclusively about the consort-of-six, and indeed in the later seventeenth century (beginning around 1660) the term "broken consort" takes on quite a different significance. In connection with this, to Redheylin I may suggest that it is anachronistic to apply the term "broken consort" to the fifteenth-century image you are struggling to maintain in the article, against Badagnani's reverts. Even if today we use the term retrospectively to encompass any ensemble of mixed instrumental types, even the word "consort" did not come into use in English until the early 16th century, about the same time that "concerto" came into use in Italian (though not in the modern sense, I hasten to add). Perhaps this is the essence of Badagnani's objections to the picture?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly I had presented the sources, as we do anywhere at Wikipedia, so that the community of interested editors (admittedly small for Elizabethan music!) can consider them before actually editing the article. I do listen to a lot of broken consort music, both in CD and live, by The Baltimore Consort when I'm able, and am fairly familiar with the style and repertoire. It's the usage of the term that seems to have fluctuated over the years, and from individual to individual, as well as to refer backwards, to music that is not from the Elizabethan era. It's also unclear whether the term could also be applied to consort music not composed in the British Isles. There are a lot of questions that should be discussed and examined before actually making the edits, as has been happening a lot lately. Badagnani (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the latter point, I did feel the 15th-century image anachronistic, though if Elizabethan folks did refer to mixed consort music from earlier centuries as "broken consort" music, I suppose it could work. But an actual photo of an Elizabethan broken consort in classical formation of three plucked instruments, one bowed instrument, and one recorder or flute, would be best. I wrote to The Baltimore Consort to request such a photo a few days ago, but have so far gotten no response. Badagnani (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must mean two bowed instruments, but good on you for seeking a photo. The only historical picture, to my knowledge, is in a detail of a famous portrait of Sir Henry Unton in the National Portrait Gallery, London, which has been reproduced many times on record jackets and in articles, but I suspect is not to be found in a copyright-free image. There is also an engraving by Simon de Passe, dated 1612 and reproduced on p. 611 of Ian Harwood's 1978 review of Musica Britannica 20, showing an incomplete consort, evidently just beginning a rehearsal. A recorder or flute player is just entering the room, where a lady citternist and three gentlemen with violin, bass viol, and what looks like an orpharion are already warming up. Either the bandora player is still absent, or the "orpharion" is a badly drawn bandora (way too small), and the lutenist has yet to arrive. In any case, I imagine the same problem with obtaining a copyright-free image would pertain here.
As to "Elizabethan folks" referring to mixed consort music from earlier centuries, it would be surprising if they did so at all (given that music tended to disappear off the receding horizon at an interval of about 50 years), and even more surprising if they used the term "broken consort", which it appears did not occur in English until well into the seventeenth century. The term "broken music", on the other hand, evidently did not refer during the Elizabethan era to an ensemble of musicians (as this article still incorrectly states in the lede), but rather to music with brilliant divisions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant two viols, not one. Excellent points regarding the disappearance of earlier music from the radar of most periods and the anachronistic usage of "broken consort." It's enough to give one a headache, if the music weren't so beautiful! Badagnani (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The English language has got a lot to answer for! (It's enough to make you want to renounce it and go back to Latin. Trouble is, that means moving to a different Wikipedia!) To address your question about the appropriateness of the term "broken consort" to non-English music, naturally it depends on how you choose to translate the English into French, German, Portuguese, Polish, Italian, etc. If you insist on anything approaching a literal translation, then I think the answer must be in the negative. On the other hand, if you accept a term that expresses the same idea, then it might be possible. On the third hand, if you mean did the English in the seventeenth century refer to examples of "foreign music" using this term, then it is almost certainly the case. It is well to recall that a number of English musicians of this period sought and found employment on the Continent (Dowland, for a start), which raises the further question of what local term might have been used for the "broken consort" pieces by these composers.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JK - it's a fair point, however in the first place, wandering as I do through the nether regions sorting out pages from a visual-literary view, I take the view that any decent graphic is better than none - I will never quibble if something better comes along, but a good pic, as they say - 1000 words and 1000 times more readers. In the second place, this pic is estimated maybe five years before the close of the 15C. If you listen to Munrow - take a record like "Anthems from Eden" - this is basically the instrumentation you will hear, and Byrd or Talllis would have looked at that pic and called it a "broken music", I reckon, just as anyone today would call it an ensemble or band, and he would have recognised all the instruments because they are beautifully depicted and had changed little. I found the best pic I could in commons, it's not in use, it deserves to be, it will do until the real thing comes along; that's my view. I bow to your statement that the term's general significance only happened along later, but it is still this general sense that is primary in reference works. Anyhow, I am glad the article is getting improved - they do not usually get improved through destructive editing I find, so please no more divisions on the ground.... let us continuo! Redheylin (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quel bon mot! Mes félicitations. I do sympathize, and I know how difficult it can be to find a suitable picture to illustrate a Wikipedia article. I don't know the Munrow album you mention (and I thought I had all of his recordings), but I doubt very much whether either Byrd or Tallis would have concluded that they were watching brilliant divisions from the musicians in that painting. More likely they would say, "your grannie's music!"—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JK, can your references be formatted to a numbered reflist, rather than inline like that? Do you know how. or shall I? It's standard style. Redheylin (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, it is one standard style. Wikipedia MoS does not discriminate amongst the many standards of style. The references in this article are presently formatted in the standard called "Chicago format", which I personally prefer, because it is unobtrusive.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you mean there is a picture elsewhere of Simpson (one presumes ChristopherSimpson) at the viol. The first image here is mid-eighteenth century, the second early-ish seventeenth. The third image would be perfect for the "consort-of-six" period, even if it is German. There remains only the issue raised by Badagnani, of whether the term applies to non-English music.
-or did you remove the reflist on purpose? I found in the history - "reverting to original format, no consensus" - but as far as I can see I was the first to add citations to the article! Redheylin (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guidance on parenthetic quotes is "may at times be used", though roughly " is not so good for editors and general readers" but that the style, once established, should not be changed. Do you think I had changed it? There were no refs when I began! Redheylin (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Number one, I did not remove the one reference you added—I merely reverted the format to the one previously in place. Number two, if you check very carefully, you will discover that there was this citation already in place. I was the one who added it. (I did say that the Chicago format is unobtrusive!)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well - if you want it that way. I thought you were just used to papers and did not know how! In fact, it took a while to realise there was any action on the page at all. I had been working through these dusty pages... anyhow, great you happened along. I see you are a proud Czech - I wonder if you can help me with a few solid refs for obsolete E European instruments? You can see where I've been on my contributions. I'd be really grateful. Do you like the other pic? It is not English, but again as someone said, surely Dowland in Bohemia would have said ahah, a broken..... by the way thanks for that, that it can also mean divisions. Could you give me the actual usage of that? Is it in Morley? Anyhow, we have three plucked (inc virginal), two bowed and a flute (transverse!!) here but also a shawm, posthorn and crumhorn I think, or racket. Is this TOO broken? An atomised consort? Redheylin (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, given all this, we are still stuck for two facts: 1) when did the term "broken" change significance and 2) does the Morley variety belong here if it was never so known? That is; did the term refer to a specific instrumentation when Morley used it? Morley was alegedly a mate of Shakespeare - he had sole publishing rights and, if he published "for broken consort" rather than the usual "apt for voyces, viols or what you will", he must have expected people to understand what he meant. Hence it follows, Shakespeare must have understood this usage. Redheylin (talk) 06:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your questions are all addressed in the article itself, which has undergone considerable change in the past 48 hours. However, let me clarify a few points. First, the full title of Morley's collection is The First Booke of Consort Lessons, Made by Diuers Exquisite Authors, for Six Instruments to Play Together, the Treble Lute, the Pandora, the Cittern, the Base-Violl, the Flute & Treble Violl. You will see there is no employment of the word "broken" here, nor does it occur anywhere else in the book, neither as "broken music" nor (especially) "broken consort", an expression not used until the second half of the seventeenth century. Elsewhere, Morley is indeed an important source for the term "broken music" in the sense of "divisions". In his A plaine and easie introduction to practicall musicke (1597), on p. 97, there is the following legend to a musical example: "The plainsong of the Hymne Saluator mundi, broken in diuision, and brought in a Canon of thre parts in one, by Osbert Parsley". Shakespeare, as Warwick Edwards points out in his New Grove article "Consort", is chiefly interested in the word "broken" as a vehicle for punning, as in Henry V, act 5, scene ii, line 263: "Come your Answer in broken Musick; for thy Voyce is Musick, and thy English broken." The sense of "broken music" here is rather opaque. Shakespeare simply assumes that the expression will be known to his audience, though any answer from just one person, in this case Princess Katherine, whose English is indeed broken (Henry is reacting to her line "Your majesté ave fausse French enough to deceive de most sage demoiselle dat is en France", and after his speech, she responds, "Dat is as it sall please de roy mon père") is difficult to construe as polyphonic! There are a number of other ambiguous uses of "broken music" from Shakespeare, of course. A passage in Francis Bacon's Sylva sylvarum; or a naturall historie (1626) is sometimes cited as an example of "broken music" to mean "part-music" (which of course could be either for a homogeneous or heterogeneous ensemble): "So likewise, in that music which we call broken-music or consort-music, some consorts of instruments are sweeter than others", but in the context of our discussion here, I think it a distinct possibility that Bacon is referring to ensemble compositions such as are found in Morley's and Rosseter's collections (recall that Edwards in New Grove tells us that up to Shakespeare's time the word "consort" without any qualifier always meant an ensemble of mixed instruments), where one or more parts are characteristically fitted out with elaborate divisions. Unambiguous use of the phrase "broken consort" to differentiate ensembles of mixed instrumentation from "whole consorts" with same-family instruments does not occur until the second half of the seventeenth century—1660 at the latest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the above. The statement that Morley published "specifically for broken consort" threw me. All is now clear. As for the rest, it just shows how far we have come in a couple of decades - I could use a new book. Now this [citation needed]--The OED says that when "concert" was first adopted into Englsih, it "was confounded with the earlier word CONSORT", not that concert was derived from consort. The statement is from OCM, so I have left the citation to apply to both sentences. The term "concert" was, I think, confounded with "consort" in the same way that someone put a " See also - Queen Consort" on the present page. It began to mean two unrelated things: consort in the new sense was an Italian neologism which was approximated orthographically to a pre-existent word, which handily means Queen Katherine!! That Shakespeare - subtle. But from the above it seems sure that Bacon used the word "broken"as a synonym for "consort". Anyhow, the references are good and the thing is improving.
My head fairly spins. I have added a contrary opinion, and need to consider how the OED fits in.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, as I intimated, I wonder if you can clarify something else - that "pandora" of Morley's - I have just been adding to the pages Mandora and Bandora (instrument) and please see my little note at the bottom of the latter. Does Morley mean an ancestor to the mandolin, or does he mean a large cittern or lute suitable for basso continuo? And lastly, for my own understanding, can you say whether the latter class of instruments played only the bottom line, or did they play the figured harmonies as well? Did this also apply to viols, and were these also used pizzicato? Any help on this would be very welcome, esp with secondary sources. Thanks JK. Redheylin (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had the time to check your edits to "Bandora", but "pandora" is merely a variant spelling. It is a sort of flat-backed bass lute, tuned an octave lower than the treble lute, but is double-strung with wire strings. It is a member of the family of instruments called "wyres" by Antony Holborne, which also includes the orpharion and cittern. In Morley's Lessons (as well as in Rosseter, and the manuscript sources), the chords in the bandora part are fully written out in tablature. There are no "figured harmonies", which only first appear in Italy in Viadana and Caccini's publications from 1601. I'm not sure how long it took for figured bass to infiltrate England, but I don't suppose it was before the 1620s.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the Munrow album you mention (and I thought I had all of his recordings), - well this is your lucky day! But it is Anthems in Eden, sorry. Yes the Simpson pic is elsewhere; it's from his "division viol". Redheylin (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! So not purely a Munrow/Early Music Consort of London recording, but a sort of hybrid. It reminds me of the "green album" famous in folk-dance circles.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all that. I still do not think the OCM and the OED "reverse" each other. I understand that the use of obsolete plucked bass strings continued longer than is often thought, hence the question. GREEN album? Is that "Morris On"? That's an electric folk-dance record. "Anthems" is done purely as a consort, a song-cycle with instrumental interludes, as is its sequel Love, Death and the Lady. It is not really "hybrid" since a lot of the tunes are Elizabethan, though there are a few that seem to me a little late in kind for such treatment and would sound better on a harpsichord. Redheylin (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. However, I don't see any way of regarding the relationship between Scholes (OCM) and OED other than "reversed". The former says the word "consort" later turned into "concert" (without, BTW, specifying which of the many senses is meant), whereas Boyden (following the OED) says it was "concert" (the French derivative of Italian "concerto") that turned into "consort".
The "Green Album" was a mainly acoustic recording (electric bass was used on some tracks, but that is all) of folk dances from the British Isles. Many of the musicians were well-known as "early music" performers (Philip Pickett, Jeremy Montagu, Adam and Roderick Skeaping, Alan Lumsden, Richard Harvey, etc.), and there were also readings from various literary figures by well-known actors such as Sarah Badel, Michael Hordern, Michael Gough, Alec McCowen, and Ian Ogilvy. After a little digging, I have discovered it's proper title is The Compleat Dancing Master, and it was originally issued in 1974 on Island Records. It was a "hybrid" album in that it mixed "early music" with "folk" repertories, ranging from medieval dances from the MS Brit. Lib. Add. 29 987 down to traditional tunes from the nineteenth century.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JK - have recently edited Chaconne, which you have worked on - hope you will cast an eye. Am concerned by disconnect between it and passacaglia. Redheylin (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already have done, and your edits seem very sensible. I'm not sure what you mean about a "disconnect" from "Passacaglia", though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two different accounts of their relationship - are you a differentist or a samist? So the albom was Ashley Hutchings (great bassplayer and ex hubby of S Collins if I recall). Anyhow, as I say and you imply, when there's insufficient study of anonymous ("folk") compositions then there's "hybrid" - but some anonymous material, I think can be dated by pure musicology, characteristic rhythms and harmony etc. I do not think anyone would think it hybrid if C Hogwood played "Greensleeves" on a virginal? Well then, look at "the north wind doth blow" (galliard) "the lover's ghost" (pavane), three blind mice (polyphonic jig) - I have never heard of any groups of merrie England revivalist peasants committing acts of collective retrospective composition so, if someone arranges these a la Morley, what is "hybrid"? (You stepped on my toe!!) Btw, did you ever come across "The Wooden O"? Redheylin (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I shall have to look more closely at the Chaconne article, but it is not uncommon for different writers to give conflicting accounts of historical relationships. In any case, perhaps we should take this part of the discussion over the talk pages of Chaconne and Passacaglia. As for playing "Greensleeves" on a virginals (always plural, BTW, like "scissors" and "trousers", but taking the singular article), no, of course not, since the tune is known from sources in the 16th century (particularly lute settings, but there may be keyboard versions as well). I don't know two of the other three tunes you name, so I will have to pass. When you use the expression "merrie England revivalist" are you speaking generally, or are you referring specifically to the Merrie England movement that began early in the nineteenth century? If the latter, I am not personally acquainted with any attempts to manufacture "new mediaeval music", but their latter-day descendants have certainly done so. Have a look at Musical_historicism#Historicism_in_contemporary_music, and the Delian Society's official site. Genuine antiques, made while you wait! And, no, I have no idea what "The Wooden O" refers to.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Corner[2] Redheylin (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morley's book of Consort Lessons

[edit]

So there was a question to give examples of this usage. I give one, you revert it. Go ahead, be a jerk about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eijkhout (talk • contribs) 15:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you will read it a little more carefully, the request was not for "an example of usage", but for a source documenting variability of the scoring. If you like, I will restore your offered source with a "failed verification" tag. Would that be better? Thank you for your considerate input.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Broken_consort&oldid=1200378162"