Talk:Girolamo Frescobaldi

message: I removed this paragraph from the article:
:Frescobaldi invented the tempo, making a compromise between the ancient white mensural notation with a rigid tactus and the modern notion of tempo, which is characterized by acceleration and deceleration within a piece.
I can find no evidence that this is true.  The replacement of "tactus" and the old system of mensuration in use since the 15th century, or before, with the modern concept of tempo and its correponding system of meter and time signature took place gradually throughout the 17th century, and can be seen in the work of a number of composers.  Frescobaldi was certainly one of the innovators (for instance check out his time signatures of "4/6" and "8/12") but calling him the inventor of tempo is just going too far.  If I am wrong please present your evidence; I'd be quite happy to see it! Antandrus 04:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm removing this bit from the Trivia section:
Sometimes jovially referred to as "Frisky Bald Guy" in musicological circles. A play on his name, it is a fitting description of his characteristically sporadic style of composition, and the receding hairline that is evident in his later portraits.
For one thing, I've never ever heard anyone call him that. Google Books and Google Scholar have no results, and all Google results seem to be either Wikipedia mirrors or people who read the article here. For another, it is insulting, really. And finally, the "reasons" provided aren't reasons at all. There are no "later portraits", only one chalk drawing and two engravings probably based on that (and noone really knows when the chalk drawing was done). And the "characteristically sporadic style of composition".. what? So until (and if) a reliable published source backs this up, I suggest keeping the notice out. --Jashiin (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frisky Bald Guy 

message: Most external sources that aren't mirrors of WP say he was born "in mid-September".  A couple say 9 September; traditionally 9 September was recorded as his date of baptism, meaning a birth no later than that date.  So, where does this precise date of 13 September come from?  I note the Italian WP article also has that date.  Did we just copy them, or did we rely on an actual source?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  The article by Frederick Hammond and Alexander Silbiger in the current online New Grove just says "mid-September", referencing the baptismal entry (with disputed interpretation; a 1983 article by A. Cavicchi -- 'Per far più grande la meraviglia dell'arte', Frescobaldi e il suo tempo (Venice, 1983), 15–39 -- gives some details, but I don't have it).  In the 1980 New Grove, there is a bit more detail, but Anthony Newcomb's writeup may have been superseded by Cavicchi's findings.  He says, "Although the record of Frescobaldi's birth survives there is no unanimity of opinion as to how to read it.  9 September (Haberl, 1887), 13 September (Bennati) and 15 September (Cametti, 1927, and Casimiri, 1937) have been proposed.  The last date should probably be accepted."  The Casimiri reference is:  R. Casimiri: ‘Tre “Girolamo Frescobaldi” coetanei negli anni 1606–1609’, NA, xiv (1937), 1–10, if anyone would like to chase it down (I don't have JSTOR at home) ("NA" is Note d'archivio per la storia musicale).  I think we are safe with "mid-September" if we'd like to reference the current New Grove. Antandrus  (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply, Ant.  You're always good value.  Well, given the diversity of opinion, I'd rather leave it as simply "September", and have a footnote mentioning the various proposed dates (9th, 13th, 15th).  New Grove seems to be favouring the 13th-15th part of the month, but even they can't be categorical about it.  Slonimsky says (or did say) baptised 9 September, and I'd discard that with considerable reluctance.  Maybe best to wait for access to the sources your mention before we get any more precise (or any less imprecise) than just the month.  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  Looks fair to me; since we really don't know, and there are diverse opinions, "September" is fine. Antandrus  (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that his gravestone (I can't link it; blacklisted) says 2 September. How much credence we can give to that is an open question. The original tomb disappeared apparently, and this is a later addition. --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth

message: Quote from the article:
Facsimile of Aria detta la Frescobalda (1627), the earliest known set of variations on an original theme
What does it mean mean exactly? It is a very strong claim. Renaissance/baroque was the period of variations. Many compositions from that time are based on repeating the same theme over and over and playing with it -- basically what you do in variations. In what sense Aria detta la Frescobalda can be called the first then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.182.184 (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aria detta