niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
Passage: Edmund Sharpe was born on 31 October 1809 at Brook Cottage, Brook Street in Knutsford, Cheshire, the first child of Francis and Martha Sharpe.  His father, a peripatetic music teacher and organist at Knutsford parish church, came from Stamford in Lincolnshire.  At the time of marriage his wife, Martha Whittaker, was on the staff of an academy for young ladies, Belvedere House, in Bath, Somerset. During his childhood in Knutsford, the young Edmund played with Elizabeth Stevenson, the future Mrs Gaskell. In 1812 the Sharpe family moved across town from Over Knutsford to a farm in Nether Knutsford called Heathside, when Francis Sharpe then worked as both farmer and music teacher.  Edmund was initially educated by his parents, but by 1818 he was attending a school in Knutsford.  Two years later he was a boarder at a school near Runcorn, and in 1821 at Burney's Academy in Greenwich. Edmund's father died suddenly in November 1823, aged 48, and his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where she later resumed her teaching career.Edmund continued his education at Burney's Academy, and became head boy. In August 1827 he moved to Sedbergh School (then in the West Riding of Yorkshire, now in Cumbria), where he remained for two years. In November 1829 he entered St John's College, Cambridge as a Lupton scholar. At the end of his course in 1832 he was awarded a Worts Travelling Bachelorship by the University of Cambridge, which enabled him to travel abroad for three years' study.  At this time his friend from Lancaster at Trinity College, William Whewell, was Professor of Mineralogy. John Hughes, Edmund Sharpe's biographer, is of the opinion that Whewell was influential in gaining this award for Sharpe. Edmund graduated BA in 1833, and was admitted to the degree of MA in 1836. During his time abroad he travelled in Germany and southern France, studying Romanesque and early Gothic architecture. He had intended to travel further into northern France, but his tour was curtailed in Paris owing to "fatigue and illness". Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect. In December he wrote a letter to William Whewell saying that he had "finally determined to adopt the Profession of Architecture".  Some sources state that Sharpe was articled to the architect Thomas Rickman. Sharpe did visit Rickman for a few days in 1832 and corresponded with him later. He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent, but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him".
Output: What is the first name of the person who remained at Sedbergh School for two years?
Passage: Edmund Sharpe was born on 31 October 1809 at Brook Cottage, Brook Street in Knutsford, Cheshire, the first child of Francis and Martha Sharpe.  His father, a peripatetic music teacher and organist at Knutsford parish church, came from Stamford in Lincolnshire.  At the time of marriage his wife, Martha Whittaker, was on the staff of an academy for young ladies, Belvedere House, in Bath, Somerset. During his childhood in Knutsford, the young Edmund played with Elizabeth Stevenson, the future Mrs Gaskell. In 1812 the Sharpe family moved across town from Over Knutsford to a farm in Nether Knutsford called Heathside, when Francis Sharpe then worked as both farmer and music teacher.  Edmund was initially educated by his parents, but by 1818 he was attending a school in Knutsford.  Two years later he was a boarder at a school near Runcorn, and in 1821 at Burney's Academy in Greenwich. Edmund's father died suddenly in November 1823, aged 48, and his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where she later resumed her teaching career.Edmund continued his education at Burney's Academy, and became head boy. In August 1827 he moved to Sedbergh School (then in the West Riding of Yorkshire, now in Cumbria), where he remained for two years. In November 1829 he entered St John's College, Cambridge as a Lupton scholar. At the end of his course in 1832 he was awarded a Worts Travelling Bachelorship by the University of Cambridge, which enabled him to travel abroad for three years' study.  At this time his friend from Lancaster at Trinity College, William Whewell, was Professor of Mineralogy. John Hughes, Edmund Sharpe's biographer, is of the opinion that Whewell was influential in gaining this award for Sharpe. Edmund graduated BA in 1833, and was admitted to the degree of MA in 1836. During his time abroad he travelled in Germany and southern France, studying Romanesque and early Gothic architecture. He had intended to travel further into northern France, but his tour was curtailed in Paris owing to "fatigue and illness". Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect. In December he wrote a letter to William Whewell saying that he had "finally determined to adopt the Profession of Architecture".  Some sources state that Sharpe was articled to the architect Thomas Rickman. Sharpe did visit Rickman for a few days in 1832 and corresponded with him later. He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent, but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him".
Output: What is the first name of the person who entered St. John's College, Cambridge in 1829?
Passage: Edmund Sharpe was born on 31 October 1809 at Brook Cottage, Brook Street in Knutsford, Cheshire, the first child of Francis and Martha Sharpe.  His father, a peripatetic music teacher and organist at Knutsford parish church, came from Stamford in Lincolnshire.  At the time of marriage his wife, Martha Whittaker, was on the staff of an academy for young ladies, Belvedere House, in Bath, Somerset. During his childhood in Knutsford, the young Edmund played with Elizabeth Stevenson, the future Mrs Gaskell. In 1812 the Sharpe family moved across town from Over Knutsford to a farm in Nether Knutsford called Heathside, when Francis Sharpe then worked as both farmer and music teacher.  Edmund was initially educated by his parents, but by 1818 he was attending a school in Knutsford.  Two years later he was a boarder at a school near Runcorn, and in 1821 at Burney's Academy in Greenwich. Edmund's father died suddenly in November 1823, aged 48, and his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where she later resumed her teaching career.Edmund continued his education at Burney's Academy, and became head boy. In August 1827 he moved to Sedbergh School (then in the West Riding of Yorkshire, now in Cumbria), where he remained for two years. In November 1829 he entered St John's College, Cambridge as a Lupton scholar. At the end of his course in 1832 he was awarded a Worts Travelling Bachelorship by the University of Cambridge, which enabled him to travel abroad for three years' study.  At this time his friend from Lancaster at Trinity College, William Whewell, was Professor of Mineralogy. John Hughes, Edmund Sharpe's biographer, is of the opinion that Whewell was influential in gaining this award for Sharpe. Edmund graduated BA in 1833, and was admitted to the degree of MA in 1836. During his time abroad he travelled in Germany and southern France, studying Romanesque and early Gothic architecture. He had intended to travel further into northern France, but his tour was curtailed in Paris owing to "fatigue and illness". Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect. In December he wrote a letter to William Whewell saying that he had "finally determined to adopt the Profession of Architecture".  Some sources state that Sharpe was articled to the architect Thomas Rickman. Sharpe did visit Rickman for a few days in 1832 and corresponded with him later. He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent, but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him".
Output: What is the first name of the person who was awarded a Worts Traveling Bachelorship by the University of Cambridge?
Passage: Edmund Sharpe was born on 31 October 1809 at Brook Cottage, Brook Street in Knutsford, Cheshire, the first child of Francis and Martha Sharpe.  His father, a peripatetic music teacher and organist at Knutsford parish church, came from Stamford in Lincolnshire.  At the time of marriage his wife, Martha Whittaker, was on the staff of an academy for young ladies, Belvedere House, in Bath, Somerset. During his childhood in Knutsford, the young Edmund played with Elizabeth Stevenson, the future Mrs Gaskell. In 1812 the Sharpe family moved across town from Over Knutsford to a farm in Nether Knutsford called Heathside, when Francis Sharpe then worked as both farmer and music teacher.  Edmund was initially educated by his parents, but by 1818 he was attending a school in Knutsford.  Two years later he was a boarder at a school near Runcorn, and in 1821 at Burney's Academy in Greenwich. Edmund's father died suddenly in November 1823, aged 48, and his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where she later resumed her teaching career.Edmund continued his education at Burney's Academy, and became head boy. In August 1827 he moved to Sedbergh School (then in the West Riding of Yorkshire, now in Cumbria), where he remained for two years. In November 1829 he entered St John's College, Cambridge as a Lupton scholar. At the end of his course in 1832 he was awarded a Worts Travelling Bachelorship by the University of Cambridge, which enabled him to travel abroad for three years' study.  At this time his friend from Lancaster at Trinity College, William Whewell, was Professor of Mineralogy. John Hughes, Edmund Sharpe's biographer, is of the opinion that Whewell was influential in gaining this award for Sharpe. Edmund graduated BA in 1833, and was admitted to the degree of MA in 1836. During his time abroad he travelled in Germany and southern France, studying Romanesque and early Gothic architecture. He had intended to travel further into northern France, but his tour was curtailed in Paris owing to "fatigue and illness". Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect. In December he wrote a letter to William Whewell saying that he had "finally determined to adopt the Profession of Architecture".  Some sources state that Sharpe was articled to the architect Thomas Rickman. Sharpe did visit Rickman for a few days in 1832 and corresponded with him later. He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent, but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him".
Output: What is the first name of the person who traveled abroad for three years' study?
Passage: On an ocean liner sailing from the Orient to San Francisco, Mei Lei Ming gives fellow passenger Nita Kenton a reading. When Nita's boyfriend, importer Phillip Corey, scoffs at her predictions, she informs him that he himself will die within 48 hours.
Corey is later found dead in his San Francisco shop, an apparent suicide. Police Inspector Jim C. Gregg is certain it is a homicide and has Sergeant Kelly bring Mei Lei in for questioning. She convinces him she is innocent and, after demonstrating her astrological powers by telling both skeptical policemen about themselves based solely on their birth dates, proceeds to help them solve the case and two subsequent, related killings. Police forensic scientist Dr. Merton, however, remains firmly scornful of Mei Lei's unscientific methods.
When Corey's Chinese business partner Frederick Gow shows up at the police station, he recognizes Juggler Barrows (an uncredited Sidney Bracey), who has been brought in for questioning about an unrelated crime. He pretends to cough and uses a handkerchief to conceal his face from Barrows as he enters Gregg's office. There, he announces that he wants to recover certain business letters from Corey's safe. Mei Lei becomes suspicious. When the letters Gow wanted are later examined, Mei Lei discovers a coded message that indicates Corey and Gow were involved in drug smuggling.
Output: What's the full name of the person who tell's Nita's boyfriend that he will die?
Passage: On an ocean liner sailing from the Orient to San Francisco, Mei Lei Ming gives fellow passenger Nita Kenton a reading. When Nita's boyfriend, importer Phillip Corey, scoffs at her predictions, she informs him that he himself will die within 48 hours.
Corey is later found dead in his San Francisco shop, an apparent suicide. Police Inspector Jim C. Gregg is certain it is a homicide and has Sergeant Kelly bring Mei Lei in for questioning. She convinces him she is innocent and, after demonstrating her astrological powers by telling both skeptical policemen about themselves based solely on their birth dates, proceeds to help them solve the case and two subsequent, related killings. Police forensic scientist Dr. Merton, however, remains firmly scornful of Mei Lei's unscientific methods.
When Corey's Chinese business partner Frederick Gow shows up at the police station, he recognizes Juggler Barrows (an uncredited Sidney Bracey), who has been brought in for questioning about an unrelated crime. He pretends to cough and uses a handkerchief to conceal his face from Barrows as he enters Gregg's office. There, he announces that he wants to recover certain business letters from Corey's safe. Mei Lei becomes suspicious. When the letters Gow wanted are later examined, Mei Lei discovers a coded message that indicates Corey and Gow were involved in drug smuggling.
Output: Who plays the character that the business partner of Nita's boyfriend is trying not to be seen by?
Passage: Julie Cullen is a young divorced parent, on her own for the past four years since her husband abandoned her and their daughter, Ellen, only a year old at the time.  At work, Julie, who is white, meets Frank Richards, who is black, and the two strike up a friendship that blossoms into a romance.  Their relationship is strained by the racial prejudices of many around them, including Frank's parents, William and Martha, who oppose the pairing.  But ultimately Frank and Julie decide to persevere through such difficulties.  They marry, and Julie and Ellen move in with Frank and his parents.  Ellen's arrival immediately softens Martha's heart, but William remains cool toward Julie, steadfast in his belief that Frank and Julie's marriage is a foolish endeavor.  His attitude changes only when Frank and Julie have a son together.  When William first holds his new grandson, he loses any remaining animosity and the household becomes a happy one for all.
Eventually, Julie's ex-husband, Joe, returns, seeking to establish a visitation relationship with Ellen.  However, when he finds that Julie's and Ellen's new family is black, he finds this unacceptable and petitions the court for legal custody of Ellen.  Frank's lawyer tells him that Joe is likely to win.  Agreeing with the lawyer's analysis, William advises Frank to take Julie and the children and flee the state.  Frank, however, decides to stay and fight the case in court.  When Julie appeals to Joe directly, it only angers him, and he even briefly attempts to force himself on Julie physically.  When Frank learns what has happened, he is intensely frustrated by his inability to defend his wife by directly confronting Joe, since he knows that if he does, that will be the end of whatever small chance he and Julie have of winning the custody case.
Output: Who is Ellen's father?
Passage: Julie Cullen is a young divorced parent, on her own for the past four years since her husband abandoned her and their daughter, Ellen, only a year old at the time.  At work, Julie, who is white, meets Frank Richards, who is black, and the two strike up a friendship that blossoms into a romance.  Their relationship is strained by the racial prejudices of many around them, including Frank's parents, William and Martha, who oppose the pairing.  But ultimately Frank and Julie decide to persevere through such difficulties.  They marry, and Julie and Ellen move in with Frank and his parents.  Ellen's arrival immediately softens Martha's heart, but William remains cool toward Julie, steadfast in his belief that Frank and Julie's marriage is a foolish endeavor.  His attitude changes only when Frank and Julie have a son together.  When William first holds his new grandson, he loses any remaining animosity and the household becomes a happy one for all.
Eventually, Julie's ex-husband, Joe, returns, seeking to establish a visitation relationship with Ellen.  However, when he finds that Julie's and Ellen's new family is black, he finds this unacceptable and petitions the court for legal custody of Ellen.  Frank's lawyer tells him that Joe is likely to win.  Agreeing with the lawyer's analysis, William advises Frank to take Julie and the children and flee the state.  Frank, however, decides to stay and fight the case in court.  When Julie appeals to Joe directly, it only angers him, and he even briefly attempts to force himself on Julie physically.  When Frank learns what has happened, he is intensely frustrated by his inability to defend his wife by directly confronting Joe, since he knows that if he does, that will be the end of whatever small chance he and Julie have of winning the custody case.
Output: What is the name of the man who abandoned Julie and Ellen?
Passage: Julie Cullen is a young divorced parent, on her own for the past four years since her husband abandoned her and their daughter, Ellen, only a year old at the time.  At work, Julie, who is white, meets Frank Richards, who is black, and the two strike up a friendship that blossoms into a romance.  Their relationship is strained by the racial prejudices of many around them, including Frank's parents, William and Martha, who oppose the pairing.  But ultimately Frank and Julie decide to persevere through such difficulties.  They marry, and Julie and Ellen move in with Frank and his parents.  Ellen's arrival immediately softens Martha's heart, but William remains cool toward Julie, steadfast in his belief that Frank and Julie's marriage is a foolish endeavor.  His attitude changes only when Frank and Julie have a son together.  When William first holds his new grandson, he loses any remaining animosity and the household becomes a happy one for all.
Eventually, Julie's ex-husband, Joe, returns, seeking to establish a visitation relationship with Ellen.  However, when he finds that Julie's and Ellen's new family is black, he finds this unacceptable and petitions the court for legal custody of Ellen.  Frank's lawyer tells him that Joe is likely to win.  Agreeing with the lawyer's analysis, William advises Frank to take Julie and the children and flee the state.  Frank, however, decides to stay and fight the case in court.  When Julie appeals to Joe directly, it only angers him, and he even briefly attempts to force himself on Julie physically.  When Frank learns what has happened, he is intensely frustrated by his inability to defend his wife by directly confronting Joe, since he knows that if he does, that will be the end of whatever small chance he and Julie have of winning the custody case.
Output: What is the last name of the person who advises Frank and Julie to flee the state?
Passage: Julie Cullen is a young divorced parent, on her own for the past four years since her husband abandoned her and their daughter, Ellen, only a year old at the time.  At work, Julie, who is white, meets Frank Richards, who is black, and the two strike up a friendship that blossoms into a romance.  Their relationship is strained by the racial prejudices of many around them, including Frank's parents, William and Martha, who oppose the pairing.  But ultimately Frank and Julie decide to persevere through such difficulties.  They marry, and Julie and Ellen move in with Frank and his parents.  Ellen's arrival immediately softens Martha's heart, but William remains cool toward Julie, steadfast in his belief that Frank and Julie's marriage is a foolish endeavor.  His attitude changes only when Frank and Julie have a son together.  When William first holds his new grandson, he loses any remaining animosity and the household becomes a happy one for all.
Eventually, Julie's ex-husband, Joe, returns, seeking to establish a visitation relationship with Ellen.  However, when he finds that Julie's and Ellen's new family is black, he finds this unacceptable and petitions the court for legal custody of Ellen.  Frank's lawyer tells him that Joe is likely to win.  Agreeing with the lawyer's analysis, William advises Frank to take Julie and the children and flee the state.  Frank, however, decides to stay and fight the case in court.  When Julie appeals to Joe directly, it only angers him, and he even briefly attempts to force himself on Julie physically.  When Frank learns what has happened, he is intensely frustrated by his inability to defend his wife by directly confronting Joe, since he knows that if he does, that will be the end of whatever small chance he and Julie have of winning the custody case.
Output: What is Julie's last name after she remarries?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What is the name of the person that never published a response, Seconda Pratica?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What is the last name of the person that saw their work evolve from previous styles?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What is the last name of the person that released the fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: In what city did Monteverdi have some of his madrigals published?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What is the last name of the person that the poem O sirene de' fiumi was for?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What is the full name of the person that said his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What was the full name of the historian that stated Monteverdi had outgrown the stylistic developments by1600?
Passage: At the turn of the 17th century, Monteverdi found himself the target of musical controversy. The influential Bolognese theorist Giovanni Maria Artusi attacked Monteverdi's music (without naming the composer) in his work L'Artusi, overo Delle imperfettioni della moderna musica (Artusi, or On the imperfections of modern music) of 1600, followed by a sequel in 1603. Artusi cited extracts from Monteverdi's works not yet published (they later formed parts of his fourth and fifth books of madrigals of 1603 and 1605), condemning their use of harmony and their innovations in use of musical modes, compared to orthodox polyphonic practice of the sixteenth century. Artusi attempted to correspond with Monteverdi on these issues; the composer refused to respond, but found a champion in a pseudonymous supporter, "L'Ottuso Academico" ("The Obtuse Academic"). Eventually Monteverdi replied in the preface to the fifth book of madrigals that his duties at court prevented him from a detailed reply; but in a note to "the studious reader", he claimed that he would shortly publish a response, Seconda Pratica, overo Perfettione della Moderna Musica (The Second Style, or Perfection of Modern Music). This work never appeared, but a later publication by Claudio's brother Giulio Cesare made it clear that the seconda pratica which Monteverdi defended was not seen by him as radical change or his own invention, but was an evolution from previous styles (prima pratica) which was complementary to them.This debate seems in any case to have raised the composer's profile, leading to reprints of his earlier books of madrigals. Some of his madrigals were published in Copenhagen in 1605 and 1606, and the poet Tommaso Stigliani published a eulogy of him in his 1605 poem "O sirene de' fiumi". The composer of madrigal comedies and theorist Adriano Banchieri wrote in 1609: "I must not neglect to mention the most noble of composers, Monteverdi ... his expressive qualities are truly deserving of the highest commendation, and we find in them countless examples of matchless declamation ... enhanced by comparable harmonies." The modern music historian Massimo Ossi has placed the Artusi issue in the context of Monteverdi's artistic development: "If the controversy seems to define Monteverdi's historical position, it also seems to have been about stylistic developments that by 1600 Monteverdi had already outgrown".The non-appearance of Monteverdi's promised explanatory treatise may have been a deliberate ploy, since by 1608, by Monteverdi's reckoning, Artusi had become fully reconciled to modern trends in music, and the seconda pratica was by then well established; Monteverdi had no need to revisit the issue. On the other hand, letters to Giovanni Battista Doni of 1632 show that Monteverdi was still preparing a defence of the seconda practica, in a treatise entitled Melodia; he may still have been working on this at the time of his death ten years later.
Output: What was Monteverdi likely working on at his time of death?