Talk:L'estro armonico

message: There isn't nearly enough info on this influential collection.Perlnerd666 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: stub

message: Shouldn't this be named [L'estro armonico]]?DavidRF (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is what it is referred to in the original publication. I'll change it. BTW, once I get the proper materials, I am going to completely rewrite this page. It doesn't have nearly enough information and there is a wealth of background on this publication. Hamoohaha (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Thus far the article wasn't moved yet to the correct case, i.e. L'estro Armonico → L'estro armonico. Would anyone object I make that a mere technical request (doesn't seem worth while to launch a full-blown WP:RM for as there has been no objection to this proposal since 2009, and it is the lower case spelling for "armonico" that is found in English-language reliable sources on the topic)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  case? 

message: The main articles on these are:
*Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach
*Concerto transcriptions (Bach)
Normal policy is to wikilink to those articles. Transcriptions are not usually included under the general heading "reception". In the same way, reception does not mean what somebody has written about Vivaldi in the 21st century. It refers to the way in which the music was transmitted after it was written and the effect/influence it had. There is a large literature on this. Bach is not the only composer who composed concertos and was influenced by Vivaldi. I see no reason to write forked content on the second topic above in this article.The previous format was fine; only the wikilinks had to be changed, which is what I did.  Francis Schonken has decided that his new approach is to create parallel content on wikipedia (also known as forked content), he should explain why. The content he is creating is of no use to the reader. Paraphrasing prose from reliable secondary sources is the normal process. I haven't seen anywhere that has occurred.  Copy-pasting a sentence twice from Talbot is not paraphrase. Francis Schonken should explain himself. I would like to know why he is using primary sources from the 18th and early 19th century to create content. But more to the point, why is he trying to create parallel forked content all over wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using the article to create very poorly sourced content, which is properly discussed elsewhere; your intention appears to be to conceal that fact. t Please restore the direct wikilinks. Don't write "afik" if you have not checked for secondary sources. I doubt that Vivaldi's concertos became known through Bach's transcriptions. We don't even know how the transcriptions were communicated, except for them being in W.F. Bach's repertory. Many of the transcriptions were not considered to be by Bach at the turn of the 20th century. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcriptions by Bach/Reception 

message: The content based on Stinson 1992, and the Stinson reference (Scheibe transcription etc.) has now been removed twice from the article (, ):
----
The second of the four concertos for two violins (Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 11) was transcribed multiple times.Stinson 1992, "Preface" pp. vii–xvi Between 1727 and 1735 Johann Adolph Scheibe produced a solo harpsichord version of this fifth concerto of the collection. Scheibe's transcription, transposing from A major to G major, was a simplification of the original, leaving out most of the middle voices.
----
No clue what would be the problem with this content & reference? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Scheibe transcription

message: Francis Schonken has opined that the reception of these concertos was "as far as he knew" through Bach's editors. That preposterous statement is false. There are extensive commentaries on the reception of these concertos, which unsurprisingly can be found in the prefaces to published editions (and elsewhere in the literature). These contradict Francis Schonken's statement. Here is one example of such a preface from the Dover edition. That source has separate sections on "Performance, dissemination and reception" and "Transcriptions and arrangements". J.S.Bach is not mentioned in the first section and is described as providing an oblique view of the concertos in the second. This source has good prose. It contradicts Francis Schonken's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. His erroneous claim could have easily found its way into this wikipedia article, judging from his past edits on the reception of Bach's works. He could simply have written the statement about the Bach-Gesellschaft (his original research) and then given a link to the nineteenth century edition as a reference. No thank you. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Selfridge-Field's account of the reception (in the Dover edition) stops well before the start of the 19th century. The last print of the collection she mentions is 1751 (and 1767 for a transcription of one of its concertos). Talbot 2011 speaks about the period of about two centuries between the steep decline of popularity of Vivaldi's music which set in around 1750, and the 20th-century Vivaldi Revival. He mentions L'estro armonico as the only compositions by Vivaldi that didn't go completely out of print in that period. Above I was only speaking about the 19th century: the Bach Gesellschaft's publication of part of the original concertos of L'estro armonico was a significant part of the 19th-century reception history of the set. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Talbot explains the reception of Vivaldi in his Master Musicians Book. There is more discussion in Tonal Space in the Music of Antonio Vivaldi by Bella Brover-Lubovsky. These are not the only sources. The Vivaldi revival happened in the 20th century. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception from secondary sources 

message: See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Full format for discographies – the current recordings section falls short of what can be expected here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is not with references, but with the fact that no performers [soloists], directors of groups or performing groups are specified (nor the genre of performance).  Without those, the table has very little value. The problems are specific to this list. WikiProject Classical Music does not govern these articles. It can give advice, but individual articles have their own problems. It is quite clear that the companion article The Four Seasons (Vivaldi) fell outside the remit of WikiProject Classical Music a long time ago. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  L'estro armonico is within the remit of WikiProject Classical music since 2007 (); same for Vivaldi's Four Seasons (). Also, I don't see how The Four Seasons is a companion article to L'estro armonico, seems like you're confusing with Vivaldi's Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Companion in English does not mean what you think and was clear from the context. The WikiProjects are advisory; they cannot impose rules on editors. I wrote that no artists are mentioned and you failed to address that point. If you want to improve the article, please discuss that content. What I wrote is that there is no mention of performers and that is not helpful to the reader. That is a problem.  Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Full format for discographies, where the issue (inclusion of performers etc.) is explained, and framed as a referencing issue, so  is adequate until these issues are resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove tag for recordings section 

message: I have spent a day researching transcriptions of these concertos. As usual Francis Schonken failed to locate proper sources. A reading of the published edition by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and Stinson's article and preface indicates that the French RV catalogue lists known manuscripts containing transcriptions. The British Library lists one such transcription of the most popular concerto (op.3 no.5, RV 519) due to the Swedish composer Johan Agrell in its catalogue 
(A Collection of Easy Genteel Lessons, for the Harpsichord ... To which is added Vivaldi's ... 5th Concerto, Set for the Harpsicord. Johan Agrell, Randall and Abell, 1767) and an image appears on page 20 of the Vivaldi Compendium. There is a long article on this particular concerto by Michael Talbot. I have added it to the references and will use it as one of the secondary sources. The full 1986 RV catalogue in French is only available in the reference section of the university library, so a little time will be required to check the comments on L'estro Armonico. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcriptions in Britain and Ireland 

message: I will be looking over Ryom's 1986 book today. That is only available in a library. With Talbot's anecdotal 2010 article and Selfridge-Field's 1999 survey in the preface to the Dover edition of L'estro Armonico, that seems to be the main source for information about the transcriptions within Vivaldi scholarship. Articles are written by locating the best possible sources. I think I have been successful so far, but I would not be surprised to unearth other useful sources, possibly quite recent. (Talbot's article was only discovered by accident, although, before I found it, I was pretty sure that such an article must exist: Vivaldi scholars often refer to the topic.) The Vivaldi Compendium, edited by Talbot, also contains scattered information about the transcriptions, including a reproduction of the 1767 arrangement in the British Library, attributed to Johan Agrell. Talbot's 2010 article has a more detailed discussion with a score of the opening bars of the transcription. 
The content is uncontroversial (i.e. not a matter of "POV" whatever that is supposed to mean); it is well described in the literature; and it is fairly easy to paraphrase. The large number of transcriptions, particularly of No.5, preclude a table. The transcriptions by Bach are properly described in their own articles; there is no need to rehash that content here. A simple summary is adequate. Eleanor Selfridge-Field has given an indication of how that can be done on her wiki; and I will probably roughly follow her format. She does not mention the keys of the transcriptions, so I see no reason to do so here. Those intended for domestic consumption, as described so colourfully by Talbot, were often transposed to easier keys. In the case of the transcriptions of Bach, the transcriptions are (will be or should be) described in detail in those articles. The main sources there are Williams' Organ Music of J.S. Bach and Schulenberg's Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach. I don't see any reason to enter into minute detail here, when there is no detail there. It is just confusing =for the reader. I will describe Anne Dawson's Book fairly carefully. Only a short description is needed. Manchester of course figures in Vivaldi scholarship (the Machester Sonatas). If possible, I will try to find images of the 18th century documents. What is easy for Handel or Bach is much harder for Vivaldi.
The purpose of this rewrite is to aid the reader: to give an accurate, informative and accessible account of Vivaldi scholarship concerning these concertos. Proper sourcing is essential. Vivaldi scholars have written at length on these particular topics; after that the task is to paraphrase and summarise the commentary that they have written. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment on reception Vivaldi's neglect in the 19th century and subsequent rehabilitation in the twentieth century means that Vivaldi reception is quite different from Handel reception or Bach reception. That is well described by Vivaldi scholars and uncontroversial. It is easy to read in the literature; however, it still might come as a surprise for many readers. It is not a "POV".  That is why reception refers to the 18th century in Selfridge-Field and why revival refers to the 20th century. As far as Vivaldi's music is concerned, the 19th century seems to have been the "Dark Ages". Mathsci (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have looked at the 1986 and 2007 Ryom volumes in the university library. This confirms that apart from the transcriptions by Bach and those in the Anne Dawson Book, all identified transcriptions were of BWV 519, as explained in the reference in Stinson (Ryom, 1986, pages 616–617). The 1767 Agrell transcription is the only one that was published. The others are described by Talbot, including the transcription that Stinson ,on page xiv of the volume he edited, describes as having Scheibe as the "possible transcriber". Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing and images