Talk:Chaconne in G minor/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 08:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to review this! Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My sincerest apologies, I've found myself busy these past few days. I expect to be able to review tomorrow, if not the day after. 03:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No rush from me at all! I know you have a lot on your plate so whenever you have time will be fine. Much appreciated. DanCherek (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"musical composition" seems like unnecessary clarification, perhaps "Baroque composition" would be better? (and it would include the stylistic characterization upfront)
- Done as suggested. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"significant updates" seems a little POV in that "updates" might be considered as "bettering" the object in question. Perhaps "significant alterations/amendments/adjustments"?
- Done, changed to "alterations". DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "The chaconne employs a descending tetrachord in the accompaniment" is pretty typical for chaconnes, perhaps this could be clarified? E.g. "As is typical with chaconnes, the work employs...?
- Done as suggested. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the academic sense "early 1700s" is different than "early 18th century"; the former means "1700–1709", (akin to 1710s meaning 1710–1719) so if that is not meant here it should be clarified
- Done, corrected to "early 18th century" — hadn't even thought about that! DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"it is among the most well known"—surely it is the most well known? I doubt that caution is called for here
- Done, changed to "best known". DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
recommend linking chamber orchestra
- Done. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the text that Henze's arrangement gets (an amount which seems justified, Henze is an important composer after all), it seems like his arrangement should be mentioned in the lead?
- Done. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know which version Heifetz premiered at Carnegie with?
- Charlier's arrangement; added with new ref. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest adding a brief line to the lead just stating that numerous composers have also arranged the work. You could include some of the names if you want, but the quantity itself seems more notable. Hmm on second thought I'm not sure about this, see what you think
- Done, combined it with the Henze mention above. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently (re the Vitali article) there are arrangements for viola and cello by Friedrich Hermann and Luigi Silva respectively. Perhaps they are worth included in the "Other arrangements" section?
- Added a bit about Silva's cello arrangement. I'm struggling to find a good source for Hermann's version, besides some random theses and the fact that it's available on IMSLP. Any suggestions here? DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are so inclined (completely optional) you might include a link to a youtube recording of the work in the external links section. Perhaps Heifetz's.
- Done, great idea! DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems it, really no major issues here. Aza24 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

The more I read about the work, the less it seems that it actually has a thorough consensus of scholarly approval in attribution. The Grove article especially (and to a lesser extent this allmuisc article) make me think the lead should have "Traditionally attributed". It should also be added (as in the Grove article) notes about how none of Vitali's surviving music bears any resemblance to the Chaconne. Aza24 (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, added to both lead and body. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: Thanks for the review and for the excellent suggestions! I've implemented almost all of them with a brief point above about Hermann's arrangement. Let me know what you think. DanCherek (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Hermann arrangement, I've been unable to find anything either. I suspect this lack of coverage might mean its not worth mentioning at all, though you could always source directly from the score, which I wouldn't have an issue with. Your improvements look great overall! The only thing I would say is that I recommend explicitly including the fact that comparisons to other music by Vitali have not proved a major resemblance, as the Grove and AllMusic articles above seem to stress this. Sorry for dragging this nomination on for so long!—Will be happy to pass once these things are addressed and/or considered. Aza24 (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the Hermann arrangement in the "Other arrangements" section with a citation to this Hofmeister monthly report. For the second point, I previously added along with the observation that the chaconne is dissimilar to Vitali's other surviving compositions to the lead and as well as the dissimilarity between the chaconne and other works known to have been composed by Vitali to the "Composition and publication" section (with a citation to Grove), but are you suggesting something else? DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is perfect, I seem to have just completely missed it! Passing now—congrats! Aza24 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]