Talk:Tomás Luis de Victoria

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 3 December 2009. Further details are available here.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 27, 2017.

Counter Reformation Composers

Surely not right to list Byrd here (even if he had RC sympathies) since his formal work shows no such sympathy! Linuxlad 14:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Grove Music Online, Victoria died on August 20, 1611, not August 27. 140.147.233.105 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right ... Fixed. Antandrus (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 deletions

I've removed

He is sometimes known as the "Spanish Palestrina" because he may have been taught by Palestrina.<ref>Slonimsky, Nicolas. The Concise Edition of Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians, 8th ed. New York: Schirmer Books, 1994, p. 1073.</ref>

Not in reference, and even 'sometimes' seems dubious to me.

Even though Victoria is typically viewed as being the leading composer of the Roman School, the school was also heavily marked by other Spanish composers such as Morales, Guerrero, and Escobedo.<ref>York: Schirmer Books, 1994, p. 1073.</ref>

I can't figure out the reference, but "the leading composer" needlessly raises eyebrows. Compare Slominsky (Concise Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians) though:

..He is generally regarded as a leading representative of the Roman School, but it should be remembered that, before the appearance of Palestrina, this school was profoundly marked by Hispanic influences through the work of Morales, Guerrero, Escobedo and other Spanish composers resident in Rome. Thus Victoria inherited at least as much from his own countrymen as from Palestrina…

Without the context of a discussion of Victoria's style the remark is not terribly useful. Sparafucil (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tomás Luis de Victoria. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 12:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death

August 27 appears on sister Wikipedias, but both NG and Baker's 7th Concise give Aug. 20 without any comment. This doesn't seem to be an old style/new style issue, so where did 27th come from? Sparafucil (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the blame tool, @Zumalabe changed it back in 2014 but there isn't any further info as to why. A citation needed tag was added in 2019, and it was changed to 20/27 in 2020. --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like Aug. 20th might be the more curious of the two dates, if this death certificate can't be explained away! Sparafucil (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting problem, and all I find are contradictions. I wonder if the death certificate is a recent find? (Seems like a stretch; someone would have looked, right?) Both editions of the New Grove that I have, have 20 August. Britannica has 27 August. But there it is in handscript -- 27 August. We could cite both dates, but I'd be inclined to go with the 27th. The NG article by Robert Stevenson just may not have been updated in a while. Antandrus (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The certificate has been on the page since 2012 or earlier, with the image itself having a last-modified header of 15 Sep 2011 when it was archived in 2012. So, it's been around for a while. --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to go with 27 Aug. too, if it weren't so hard to understand how Stevens & Slominsky could go wrong: Fétis says "On croit qu'il est mort en 1608"; Pedrell (vol. 7 p. lxxvi) says Cerone speaks of Victoria in 1613 as if he were living, but "toute diligence a été inutile pour s'en assureer, malgré d'incessantes recherches.".

I stumbled btw on this problem via Wikipedia_talk:Selected_anniversaries/August_27#2020_notes; I suspect Victoria will be slightly overshadowed this year in any case. Sparafucil (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'murky'?

'... murky on the paternal side.' This word has overtones of 'disgraceful' or 'shameful'. 'Obscure' might be better. 2401:D006:A202:7E00:FD2D:FF9B:7AD8:52C0 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and edited my contribution. The offending word has been removed. It also occurred to me that in their historical context, the Victorias' origins are not really so obscure at all. Few Spanish lineages can be traced beyond the early 1500s. This is particularly true of families with Jewish origins. Mysterium06 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the classics"

Victoria most likely began studying "the classics" ...

What on earth does this mean? Please be specific. 2401:D006:A202:7E00:FD2D:FF9B:7AD8:52C0 (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]