Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine

Suggested copy edits

@Gerda Arendt: Hi, thanks for inviting me to cast an eye over this article. It is well-written and I enjoyed reading it - and I learnt from it! As we discussed, I've made suggested copy edits that made sense to me as I read through the article, but please do re-revise as you see fit. I'd be happy to discuss reasons for the suggested changes as well. Here are some further copy edit type suggestions to consider:

Thank you so much for the effort. The article is the work of many editors, and some things grew in a long history, which explains a lot of the inconsistencies still found. I'll go over the points now and fix some right now, leaving others for later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand completely! The article is remarkably consistent throughout, well done to all contributors. :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Throughout article: the lang template is used in some places but could be used more consistently as appropriate.
• Lead section:

  "SV206" Comma afterwards or in brackets? Y

  Links for "court", "Gregorian plainchant" (or just "plainchant"), "Versicle".

  I dropped "court", linked plainchant, and dropped versicle (mentioned linked in the body). Y

  "The work received renewed attention from musicologists and performers in the 20th century, who have grappled with whether it is a planned composition in a modern sense as opposed to an anthology, with the liturgical role of the concerti and sonata, and with instrumentation, chiavette, and other issues of performance practice." Simplify/clarify, possibly split sentence?

  I'll go over the lead again, last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Can we find a way not to oversimplify? Key (music) is not what is being debated, but a particular practice of transposition (music) more precisely called chiavette. Concerti & sonata have been mentioned in the previous paragraph, and whether they are indeed 'additions' is the point of the debate, centered around the presumed liturgical requirements. IMO "anthology" (like the 1641 selve, lit. a "grove") better captures the sense of an 'unplanned' collection. Sparafucil (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Monteverdi in Mantua:

  "During this time,[when?] the opera genre developed" – various years are mentioned prior to this sentence.

  modified --GA

  "The first work now [when?] considered as an opera is" – suggest revising to avoid ambiguous time references to information that may not always continue to be true.

  I need help. We can't just drop "now" because the genre "opera" was used only later. --GA

  Link "court".

  After talking about the dukes, it seems a bit redundant, no? --GA

  "first opera is L'Orfeo" Review tense? Y --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• Vespers:

  "The liturgical vespers is an evening prayer service according to the Catholic Officium Divinum (Divine Office) of Monteverdi's time, and is in Latin, as were all services of the Catholic Church at the time." Review tenses (past tense throughout seems more appropriate to me).

  I will have to find a way to express that vespers still is a Catholic evening prayer, vs. the specialties at Monteverdi's time. --GA

  "Monteverdi deviated from the typical vespers liturgy by adding motets (concerti), alternating with the psalms." Consider "between".

  taken if you think that's better --GA

  "Graham Dixon suggests that Monteverdi's setting is more suited for use for the feast of Saint Barbara, claiming, for example, that the texts taken from Song of Songs are applicable to any female saint but that a dedication to fit a Marian feast made the work more "marketable".[20][21]" If "marketable" is a direct quote from one of the sources, check it is [20], if not then place [21] next to it even though out of numerical order. If it is not a direct quote, consider another expression that does not require quotes. Also, neither source is by Dixon himself, so is his work being quoted/cited by these sources? If so, give the reference quoted by [20] or [21] using a "cited in" format.

  That whole paragraph was there before me, and I was uneasy about changes, but will think it over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

• First publication:

  "for the more complicated numbers" Is "numbers" a technical term or colloquialism?

  no idea, was there before, changed to "movements" --GA

  "resulted in some of the numbers being printed" Ditto?

  same --GA

  "delivered a copy to the pope as the music is [when?] in the papal library." Avoid statements that may not always be continue to be true.

  What can we do? It is there, and I see no reason why the library would let go of such a treaure. - I added the next page to the ref. It says in a footnote that the copy may have been printed early, and gotten to the library early, with explanations, but all this seems a bit too complex to mention in the article. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Options might be: end sentence with "delivered a copy to the pope" and let the interested reader follow up the citation (good that it's available online), or move last part of sentence to a footnote and explain along the lines of "In [year], [authority] noted there was an early copy in the papal library" but, as you say, this may be too much detail for a minor point.  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Gerda and I are going back and forth on "There is no indication that any of his publications of sacred music received a second edition. "sfn|Kurtzman|2012"." One might interpret this as Gerda suggests: a lack of popularity. But Kurtzman doesn't make that particular point, as far as I can see, and he states that there were multiple printings correcting errata, begging a definition of 'edition' in a 17c music publishing context. Sparafucil (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Performance:

  "in Rome, where he was not offered a post" Clarify, it currently seems as if we should already know he might have been.

  "Mantua" said "Probably aspiring to a better position, ..." - Expansion should probably be there if necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  "a choir large and skillful enough to cover up to ten vocal parts, split into separate choirs, and seven soloists." I think the intended meaning is conveyed without the final comma, unless it is the choir covering "ten vocal parts ... and seven soloists" (which doesn't quite seem right to me).

  The choir is one thing, - the seven soloists are a different thing, - you are probably better able to fix that. In the last performance I heard last year (Collegium Vocale Gent), one choir was formed by soloists only (Dunedin Consort), and in another performance I heard last year, there were 10 singers, period, - OVPP. Perhaps we simply drop the soloists? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for that clarification. Does "The Vespers is monumental in scale and requires a choir large and skillful enough to cover up to ten vocal parts (splitting into separate choirs for each) and seven soloists." give the intended meaning?  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, not the same, so it probably needs rewording. The 10 voices are the maximum number of different voices at a time, two choirs of four each, and two singing different cantus firmus. In your suggestion, I'd have no idea what "each" refers to. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Some scholars have argued that the Vespers was not intended as a single work but rather as a collection to choose from." Who?

  I would have to go over the sources again, but we do have his second substantial publications, Selva morale e spirituale, which certainly IS a collection. --GA

  I'll add that unlikelihood of using both of the two Magnificats makes the 1610 book as a whole unambiguously a 'collection'. There are numerous positions, of which a single work in only two versions is one. Sparafucil (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks Sparafucil. Just checking: Is there a source to support this addition so it does not appear as editorial comment?  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

  "Recent performances have" When?

  compare all recordings, - none of them would say they perform the Vespers, and then supply only parts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Imprecise words like "some" and "recent" are covered in MOS:WORDS so best to be more specific, such as "Scholars including [authority] and [authority] ...". Also, "Recent performances have ..." seems to imply that earlier ones may not have, so I'd suggest rephrasing if this is not the case.  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Music:

  "Make haste, o God, to deliver me" Lower case "o" is used here and in "Sections". Should this be upper case (as elsewhere in article) or is this the usual way of naming these pieces?

  I made it lc for all now. Tough for me, no "o" at all in the Latin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  Upper case seems more natural to me, but not a problem.  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Lower case "o" is normal in German but very odd to anglophones. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am sorry I am late to this discussion. The OED indicates that 'O' is normal, and gives several historical examples, including the 1611 King James Bible: 'Praise the Lord, O Ierusalem: praise thy God, O Zion.' We currently have 'o' in Music§Structure but 'O' in Music§Sections. I favour using 'O'.

  "O". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.) Verbcatcher (talk) 03:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Sections:

  "who are often in thirds" Link "thirds"?

  to what, please? --GA

  The disambiguation page has some options but I wasn't sure which you'd prefer; possibly link to somewhere in Interval (music) or Harmony?  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Major third would also work quite well I think (it mentions other types as well).  ~ RLO1729^💬 01:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

  Statistically one would only expect 3 out of 7 thirds to be major. Contrapuntal motion and Voicing_(music)#Doubling are more to the point, but the myriad of unlinked hits in a WP search for "parallel thirds" suggests no one has seen a need for that article yet. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  "first in even, then in triple metre" Link "metre" or "triple metre" etc?

  triple metre linked --GA

  "setting has been regarded as conservative" By whom?

  another sentence that was there before me, - sticking to the plainchant as cantus firmus simply WAS old-fashioned at the time. --GA

  "Monteverdi uses the initium" Link/explain "initium"

  While that could probably be replaced by "beginning", the tougher question is of Magnificat tone could be linked to Tonus peregrinus. I'm not sure, - later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  The most common English term is "intonation" as explained at Reciting_tone#Regular_psalm_tones. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Analysis:

  "first three psalms" Caps for "psalms"? Review whether capitals are used appropriately in each case for "psalms", "vespers", ..., throughout article.

  Psalm 113, when a specific one, but psalms when generic, like Symphony No. 9, but nine symphonies. Vespers is the only exception, because short for Vespro della Beata Vergine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

  There's also a convention of distinguishing music genres from liturgical services: music for the Mass is a mass, and I suppose "vespers" might be music for Vespers. Sparafucil (talk) 00:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

• Recordings:

  "There is an argument that Monteverdi was offering a compendium of music for vespers" Argument made by whom? Is this statement covered by the citation?

  same as above, - unified piece or collection? --GA

  "For example, normally only one of the two published versions" "Normally" – avoid ambiguous generalisations.

  Normally I'd avoid "normally" (+ this section was written by Thoughtfortheday), but I truly don't know a single exception - the two differ only by instrumentation, and conductors decide for one or the other. Playing both would be liturgically wrong. --GA

  Good, then I suggest rephrasing to avoid "normally".  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Notes:: "It is generally assumed" By whom? Needs citation.

  Still same topic, one would do one or the other, - but the word removed. --GA

  I understand that if one person says something, it needs a citation, but if a majority agrees one can say "generally", - again ask

  I think the problem is more that when an editor makes an assessment of whether or not the majority agree, they are reviewing a body of evidence which readers cannot check to see if the editor is correct. This could be considered a subtle form of original research by the editor. Instead, we should be looking to quote secondary sources who have previously made this assessment of the available evidence.  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope these suggestions are of some help. Cheers, :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 13:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much, - I'll see what I can do. Almost all changes were accepted, with thanks, with the exception of versicle in the lead - something I "inherited" from earlier editors - which I found distracting and not helpful at that point, so removed from the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RLO1729, I looked, more to come later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Great job! Cheers :)  ~ RLO1729^💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected deletion

Gerda Arendt, I suppose this edit deleted more than you wanted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, good catch. I used the feature to detect duplicate links, new to me, and need to be more careful, checking what it does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Vespro della Beata Vergine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

List of psalms

These should be listed by the Catholic numbers, given that the article's about a piece of music written for Catholic liturgy. As it says, Monteverdi would have known them by those numbers, and the books containing this service would also have them by the Latin, not Hebrew numbering. If there's some sort of policy around here, please provide a link so it can be discussed there. It seems to me much like the policy on English: use British English on British topics and American English on American topics. Whatever the titles of the articles on the psalms are, those aren't what's used in the older Catholic liturgical books (which are still in use) or the music which is based on them. PaulGS (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Agreed, and I think we have a consensus here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the changes made. A consensus on Wikipedia is something editors arrive at after considerations, and until then the status-pro-ante should be kept. I am aware that the psalm numbering is different in traditions, and that Monteverdi's time and some current Catholic bibles (but not ecumenical bibles!) counted differently from Wikipedia's article titles, which represent the Hebrew counting, both original and more familiar for a broad secular readership. I think to point at that difference on the first occasion, but then consistently use the numbers that are equal to article titles is less misleading than using the Catholic numbers in the body, misleading both with a piped link and (more!) without a link. The majority of our readers will not be trained Catholic, and know the psalms by the Hebrew numbers. The majority of the sources I saw use the Hebrew numbers. In the name of ecumenical numbering: please return to the status-quo-ante (accepted in several reviews) and run an RfC if you want a change in hundreds of articles, not just this one. You would - per this logic - have to split the settings of Psalm 130 in (Catholic) settings of Psalm 129 and the others, and do so for each of 150 psalms. - My approach of a compromise would be to say in the table "Psalm 110 (Psalmus 109)" for all five, but I really thought readers would get that from the introduction, explaining it for one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Re. "ecumenical bibles" – incorrect: they can have the "Psalm 109 (110)" or "Psalm 110 (109)" format as well. "Psalmus" is the Latin word for "Psalm", so can't be used for (WP:OR) "deductions" in this sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

    (For where I come from: The Catholic church I go to would announce Psalm 110 when the German equivalent of Dixit Dominus is read. The concert program for the Vespers had those numbers that today's audience knows.) Wikipedia psalm article titles follow the original Hebrew numbering, and to mention a psalm by a different system (anywhere on Wikipedia) without a link or a text reference is misleading for a reader who reads only that section, and would look up that number (Psalm 109) in the example. To add the link would create duplicate links, and to repeat the text would be clumsy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

    The article now follows the numbers formatted according to the indicated source, that is https://www.chandos.net/chanimages/Booklets/BT0978.pdf – that source gives the old Septuagint/Vulgate numbering first, followed by the Hebrew numbering in brackets. So I don't know why additional confusion (like as in spreading the fake news that this would not be covered by the current sources for the article) would be needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Also, ecumenism is a much later concept, not really transferable to Monteverdi's world. Ecumenism also involves respecting someone else's belief system (not overriding it by a single vision), so if, from a modern point of view, we apply "ecumenism" to the situation, then we respect Monteverdi's numbering of the Psalms. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  The question is not - to my understanding - about one source in this one article, but whether to refer to the psalms the way the majority of our readers knows them, and our article names stand for, - or not. My goal is to not mislead a reader who comes across an unexplained Psalm 109 in this article. Mozart also knew Dixit Dominus as Psalm 109. His vespers articles call it Psalm 110, and I support that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Please defer from WP:OSE arguments. Apart from being a type of argument that lacks weight in this discussion, that would also cut both ways – Wikipedia articles exclusively using the Septuagint numbering for Psalms exist likewise (of course properly indicating that that is the numbering used – so not confusing in any way). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  You don't hear me. I imagine a reader who jumps to a section in this article mentioning Psalm 109. What will they do? Look up Psalm 109, I guess. What help would you offer such readers? - While if it said Psalm 110, they'd arrive at the intented destination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Extending the convention of giving both numbers (in the format based on the Chandos source) on first occurrence in each section would be OK for me. After all, users might arrive in this article with various pre-knowledge, including recordings or concert programs that use the traditional numbering for Monteverdi's composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  E.g. this recording only has the Septuagint numbers for the Psalms on the backside of its box: someone buying or hiring that recording might be quite surprised when arriving somewhere in the middle of the current article on the composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Gerda Arendt: are we OK on this one? Seems there is some doubt... (see below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't know where we are right now, I was away real life, have no time to read all this, nor the article. When Mozart's vespers can be with Hebrew numbering, why not this one? The person who bought a recording that only has Septuagint numbers gets instructed where the table is explained. - I am not OK with the process of making changes that bait me into several reverts which I hate to do, and then get angry at myself to have reacted. I prefer you going to talk after the first revert. - I will look again here next year. This absorbs time I'd like to put into article writing, today rescuing one from being deleted, and being with people which hurts more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for agreeing with my latest proposals. See you next year! Next time make us all lose a bit less time by coming to the article talk page first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

  For the record. I didn't agree, I said I have not even time to look if I would agree. Leave me alone, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Francis. This is called Gaslighting. Your actions: Claims of a false consensus, calling editors clueless and pretending you have the right to tell any editor they are unneeded is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Nor are you in a position to reprimand any editor for not coming to a talk page. Further, that you played these games with Gerda after she tried to explain in a very personal way, indicating she is tired is pretty low. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Italicising Latin Psalm incipits in lists

I see that Latin Psalm incipits are italicised in prose, but not italicised in lists: I'd apply the same layout everywhere, that is, italicised via a {{lang|la|...}} tag. (this does not apply to Magnificat, etc, which are not Psalm incipits, but should also have a uniform style: for each of these titles/incipits, either always italicised, either not italicised neither in prose not in lists). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

To my understanding, they are italicised in prose to indicate where a first line begins and ends withon the prose, which is not needed in a list where that is clear. Change if you feel differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

False claim of consensus

I have reverted an edit - a disputed edit - which was made with a claim of consensus in this discussion. No such consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

By now the consensus seems pretty clear: all objections have been answered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Consensus means editors are in agreement. Consensus does not mean objections were answered, for the obvious reason- answered to whose satisfaction. You do not have consensus for changes. Claiming you do is a mischaracterization, a misunderstanding of what consensus means, or dishonest. I assume you misunderstand. Please wait for agreement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

??? Don't think you understand how consensus works. It is not the same as unanimity. Anyway, now the last obstacles appear to have been cleared for a workable consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Francis Schonken. Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

????????? ... and now a series of WP:ASPERSIONS ... Please, try to get a grasp of how Wikipedia works. I don't control this page, have no ambition in that direction, and am disgusted at the idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed." You have no right to tell anyone whether they are needed or not on any talk page. You don't control the talk page, trying to do so is called ownership. If you want to check on "aspersions" with a higher Wikipedia authority please feel free. Telling an editor they are clueless IS a personal attack and a true aspersion. Let's see how that plays out. In addition, attempting to misrepresent Gerda's comment to pretend she agrees with you is another problematic issue and a blatant misrepresentation. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

On content

Readers shouldn't be confused because the links are to the correct article. One option is to list both, such as Psalm 109 (110) Dixit Dominus, and the sentence above (or perhaps moved to a note) clarifying that 110 is the Hebrew numbering and 109 is what's in the books and what Monteverdi would have known it as should make it clear to readers. I would think that most readers who have an interest in either this sort of music or the Psalms would know there are two numbering systems, but if not, the article on each psalm would explain it even without a note here. PaulGS (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

• Re "perhaps moved to a note": I'd use the double notation, "Psalm 109 (110)", and support an explanatory footnote for the numbering, which, BTW, can be repeated on first occurrence in each section without needing to double the explanatory text in the footnote. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  I think the the double listing with the other number in brackets holds up the flow for readers who know about the numbering difference, which I also assume are the majority of readers of this article. A footnote would say what and where? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  Proposing four possible methods below (Thinking aloud 1–4). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thinking aloud 1

...

The five psalms for Marian feasts (as well as other female saints) begin with Psalm 110 (109)

...

The work opens with the traditional versicle and response for vespers services, the beginning of Psalm 70 (69), Deus in adjutorium meum intende (Make haste, O God, to deliver me).

...

Thinking aloud 2

...

The five psalms for Marian feasts (as well as other female saints) begin with Psalm 110

...

The work opens with the traditional versicle and response for vespers services, the beginning of Psalm 70, Deus in adjutorium meum intende (Make haste, O God, to deliver me).

...

Thinking aloud 3

...

The five psalms for Marian feasts (as well as other female saints) begin with Psalm 109 (110)

...

The work opens with the traditional versicle and response for vespers services, the beginning of Psalm 69 (70), Deus in adjutorium meum intende (Make haste, O God, to deliver me).

...

Thinking aloud 4

...

The five psalms for Marian feasts (as well as other female saints) begin with Psalm 109

...

The work opens with the traditional versicle and response for vespers services, the beginning of Psalm 69, Deus in adjutorium meum intende (Make haste, O God, to deliver me).

...

Notelist

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)