Talk:Antonio Vivaldi/Archive 2

Bach sentence correction
I have revised the following sentence:

"Bach transcribed a number of Vivaldi's concerti for solo keyboard, along with a number for orchestra, including the famous Concerto for Four Violins and Violoncello, Strings and Continuo (RV 580) as BWV 1065."

Bach did not transcribe "a number" for orchestra; he transcribed one (BWV 1056). It is also inaccurate to give RV 580 an italicized title when it has none such "title" other than "concerto" from the original publication. This title is also inaccurate anyways because the concerto is written for four violins, two violas, cello, and basso continuo. "Strings" when used in context of baroque concertos tends to refer to the ripieno orchestra, but this piece has none.

I have changed it into this:

"Bach transcribed six of Vivaldi's concerti for solo keyboard, three for organ, and one concerto for 4 harpsichords, strings, and basso continuo in A minor (BWV1065) based upon the famous concerto for four violins, two violas, cello, and basso continuo (RV 580)."

Not the best sentence, but it is more specific and factual than the previous. Revision is welcome.

I do not know how to do this, but I would find it extremely convenient to have a small table showing the transcriptions and their originals, or simply another page. I am not going to edit this sentence until I know what the consensus around here is (saves me time).

Please tell me what you think. I haven't edited significantly before and any advise would be appreciated.

Thanks

Hamoohaha (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a table would be helpful as the sentence is somewhat hard to follow for people unfamiliar with the subject like me. To create a table, see Help:Table. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  17:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so tell me if you think this sentence is more clear:

"Bach transcribed six of Vivaldi's concerti for solo keyboard, three for organ, and one for four harpsichords, strings, and basso continuo (BWV1065) based upon the concerto for four violins, two violas, cello, and basso continuo (RV 580).

I think I will put the the table in but I am not sure if it should go under that style and influnce section, have it's own section, or have a new page for it. Hamoohaha (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What about ""Bach transcribed six of Vivaldi's concerti for solo keyboard, three for organ, and one for four harpsichords, strings, and basso continuo (BWV1065) which is based upon the concerto for four violins, two violas, cello, and basso continuo (RV 580)."


 * As to where, I would put it under Works and create two sub-sections, Compositions and Transcriptions. But bear in mind you're talking to a layman here. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Style and influence requires revision
I would do it myself, but I don't have the proper materials on hand or the wiki knowledge for citations so I am asking that someone please put it in the fact that Vivaldi developed the concerto into the common format of "fast - slow - fast" and helped to popularize ritornello form, forms that would become standard for the concerto for centuries after his death. This is probably the most important part of Vivaldi's influence and legacy yet I see this hasn't been written anywhere!

Thanks,

Hamoohaha (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have links to reliable sources we could use to back up the statement? -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  18:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely why I am not putting that in. It's one of those pieces of knowledge that anyone who knows Vivaldi is aware of, but I can't pinpoint a specific place where it was written down (my resources are limited at this time). I am sure I have read it multiple times in CD liner notes. Hamoohaha (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you use this and this  (Music Encyclopedia section) to write something? -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I don't like the sentence: " Moreover, Vivaldi was able to compose nonacademic music, particularly meant to be appreciated by the wide public and not only by an intellectual minority." A good many composers before Vivaldi wrote music that was not intended for "an intellectual minority." The sentence is misleading and really should be clarified or deleted. Jmclark (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. Do you have a revised sentence in mind? It would also be great if we could find one that is sourced.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would just take it out. I can't think of what the original was intending to say when I think about the other Italian composers that came before Vivaldi and his contemporaries. Certainly there were several composers who were composing music that was intended for a specialised audience of intellectuals, but that music was not as prolific as this statement leads the reader to believe. You have to figure that opera was highly popular by then and was enjoyed by people from all classes. You also had entire composers who wrote impressive amounts of literature for armature musicians (much of the consort music and chamber music of the era was for private enjoyment by armature musicians). The statement gives no accurate, usable information in the context of the compositional environment in which Vivaldi lived. I just don't like making anything other than spelling/grammar/style/flow changes unilaterally. A statement like that might be more applicable if contrasted to a certain body of composers, where a member of a specific school of composition, for instance, "unlike most other composers of the ______ school, Vivaldi was able to write music that was no academic in nature." However, such a statement cannot really be made about Vivaldi as he was not really an adherent to a specific school or style (such as the, by-the defunct, Venetian School). Jmclark (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I sense that rather than speaking of Vivaldi's setting, the sentence in question speaks of the present setting and the spectre of academia which bars a good portion of the listening public from appreciating a good deal of orchestral music, specifically that from the Baroque period. Thus, I surmise, the line seeks to describe the unique ability of Vivaldi's music to connect with the public at large, rather than with only the history-minded, or "academic" sectors.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As written though, the statement does not clearly communicate that comparison... Perhaps we can clarify it to something like: "Unlike many of his contemporaries who's music is now rarely heard outside of either academic or special-interest settings, Vivaldi enjoys a wide reception and appreciation among modern audiences." Would something like that be better? Jmclark (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, in my opinion, that would be better. It reads smoothly.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the edits. The wording of the next sentence struck me as pushing the boundary of POV; and I didn't feel like it really added anything, so I removed it. I then edited the last sentence of the paragraph to fit the new context and to read in its proper--temporal--context. I also really like hyphens and dashes... can you tell? Jmclark (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I can tell about the hyphens and dashes. lol I also like the changes kleinzach made afterwards. The only thing that stick out unpleasantly now is the first sentence in the lead. Do you have any ideas for that? The only thought I came up with is moving it to another section. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the second sentence of that section should be the first one... I'll play with it.
 * We need to remember that Vivaldi's music is a few hundred years old. Vivaldi "is" not innovative, he was innovative. That's actually why I came to this page, I was wandering around fixing errors like that and stumbled over here. Jmclark (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it needs playing around with. And I understand and agree, now, with the past tense in that instance. Cheers.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm. The past tense before my edit referred to the 20th century, not the 18th. Referring back to the 18th is obviously fine. -- Klein zach  14:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was my last edit out of line? I moved a chunk from "style" to "posthumous". Please make verify that it was a good edit.

At this point, I can't really be of much help other than raising concerns about these composer pages as I no longer have access to most of the materials I used before. However, that should probably change over the next month.

Now, on task: I totally support the edits that have been made to Style and Influence, however now it seems pretty darn brief. Expansion would be very nice! Also, for my sentence regarding Vivaldi's influence on Bach, should I put in the BWV numbers for each transcribed piece? Thanks! Hamoohaha (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. As for including the BWV numbers, I think that would be ideal.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No reason not to include the BWV numbers. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * He brightened the formal and rhythmic structure of the concerto. What does this mean? I'll agree there's a formal structure of the concerto. Was that structure more dark before Vivaldi? When applied to the concerto as a whole, I think there's only one structure: fast - slow - fast. The rhythmic structure of the concerto, I can't make anything out of that. What is it? In short: these are weasel words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunglisher (talk • contribs) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No box?
Sorry, I don't know what it is properly called, but why the hell is the box with links in it called "Compositions by Antonio Vivaldi with Opus Number", which is on all of the articles related to opus number not here???

Thanks,

Hamoohaha (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In this article? Can't spot what you're referring to. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the box labeled "Compositions by Antonio Vivaldi with Opus Number" which has links to each of the published collections of pieces is not present in this article despite being on the articles for each opus. For example, the page on l'estro armonico has the box. 174.0.87.167 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. I've added the navbox (navigation box). -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  19:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a navbox, designed to help people navigate. It's unnessesary (and extranious) on an unrelated page -- I dunno why you added it, NeilN. Now, a navbox for Vivaldi in general, would be fine, but it doesn't make sense for the composition specific one to be here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's not for one composition but for all of Vivaldi's compositions, no? Completely related I would say. -- Neil N    talk  ♦  contribs  19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at it more closely, it could easily be modified a into a box for Vivaldi himself, taking out the individual opus listings, but keeping Four Seasons, and adding Vivaldi page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Educational assignment
This article is about to be edited as part of an educational assignment by Union University (of Jackson, Tennessee). This is being discussed here. -- Klein zach  05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's already happened, see here. -- Klein zach  13:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Argippo
This whole section is merely copied from the Argippo article. I'll try to summarize it, but maybe it would be better to remove it completely. -- Klein zach  23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nisi Dominus
Re: these two sentences:


 * "The two most recent among these discoveries are two psalm settings of Nisi Dominus (RV 803, in eight movements) and Dixit Dominus (RV 807, in eleven movements), identified in 2003 and 2005, respectively, by the Australian scholar Janice Stockigt.


 * "RV 803 was recorded for the first time in 2005 by the King's Consort under the direction of Robert King."

I have a vinyl recording of the Nisi Dominus, specifically attributed to Vivaldi, that was recorded on the Italian LP label Disco Angelicum in the early 1960s. The main singer is Anna Maria Rota (contralto), and she gives an achingly beautiful performance.

Gramophone magazine carried a review of this LP in its June 1965 issue. (See here: http://www.gramophone.net/Issue/Page/June%201965/17/767907/) Kamchatka777 (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I think the Nisi Dominus is actually RV608, not RV803 - though I'm not certain. Several recordings of the piece refer to it as RV608. But I've also seen references to two settings of the Nisi Dominus by Vivaldi. So maybe the original sentences above were accurate after all. In any event, it might be good to amplify this section to clarify things a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamchatka777 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are indeed two settings of Nisi Dominus, one RV 608 and the other RV 803. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that. I'm a bit obsessed with this piece of music at the moment. As one reviewer says, "It is perhaps only the presence of that unusual instrument [the viola d'amore] that has kept this lovely work from the pinnacles of popularity where some of Vivaldi's other compositions reside." And re my favourite part, "The...'Cum dederit' is a masterful chromatic siciliana that ranks among the most alluring Baroque depictions of sleep..." (http://www.classicalarchives.com/work/112028.html#tvf=free&tv=about) Kamchatka777 (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect link
Please note that the Mario Rinaldi link leads to a motorcycle racer of the same name, rather than to the author of "Il Teatro Musicale di Antonio Vivaldi". I have not found a Wikipedia page about the "correct" Mario Rinaldi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herophilos (talk • contribs) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Change music? :-/
I'm a new Wikipedia improver/user...but I was listening to the La Primavera recording on the page, and I noticed its a [somewhat] non-standard version of the piece; the version their playing is the one not typically used by concert violinists world wide, with a few minor differences. Googling "La Primavera" and listening to the results [on maybe YouTube] demonstrates this...

I haven't done anything to change this (I don't know how to...for starters)...and if it even does need changing because of the minor differences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.70.209 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Upsidedahead, 3 July 2011
{Hello - This is my first wikipedia edit. I heard this radio play today. I enjoyed it greatly, and think it deserves to be mentioned in your excellent article on Vivaldi. A link to the radio play online is included below, and I hope it still works by the time u access this request. Enjoy. Best regards. Luc}

REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN VIVALDI WIKI:

Contemporary Radio and Theatre Productions

In 2005 ABC Radio Drama (Australia) commissioned Sean Riley to write a radio play about Vivaldi -- the result of which was 'The Angel and the Red Priest'. Since then, a stage version has premièred at the Adelaide Festival of the Arts and the ABC production has received a special mention at the Prix Italia.

Angel and the Red Priest by Sean Riley (Synopsis)

In 1713 the 'red priest' -- known to most people as the great composer Antonio Vivaldi -- was composer in residence at the Ospedale della Pieta, an orphanage for girls in Venice. It is here that the red headed Vivaldi discovers the voice of an angel.

In Venice in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, orphanages, hospitals and homes for the less fortunate abounded and were at times the hub and centre for music in this water-locked city. While many of these abandoned and beleaguered figures were pushed towards and trained for musical success, it was the Ospedale della Pieta that stood supreme above all others. On the verge of greatness and fame, Vivaldi was searching for something more -- for a finalé that would prove his excellence and virtuosity, and in turn release him from priesthood forever.

While Vivaldi generally disliked composing for the human voice, this style of music was in high demand and thus he was compelled to do so. By chance, Vivaldi discovers the striking soprano voice of Agata, one of the residents of the Ospedale, and a muse is born. Vivaldi composes a mass to feature Agata's superb voice, but one is forced to question whether his intentions are to help or to exploit Agata. Will he continue to compose for Agata's brilliant voice, or will he leave her behind as he moves towards success and fame?

Cast - Rhiannon Brown, Chrissie Paige, Michael Habib, Nathan O'Keefe Soprano - Emma Horwood

Sound engineers - Simon Rose and Andrea Hensing Director/producer - Christopher Williams

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/airplay/stories/2011/3244574.htm

Upsidedahead (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Upsidedahead (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: Thanks for the great info. I only included about 2 sentences of that, because, for one, the info you gave above is a copy of what's on the ABC website, so using it would be a copyright violation; second, it's much longer than is appropriate for this page, which should primarily be about Vivaldi himself, and only briefly touch on this type of posthumous performances about him. But it does seem worthy of inclusion, so I added the basic info; you'll find it in the Antonio Vivaldi section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for including the information that I sent you in your wiki on Vivaldi. Great job, once more! If I may, I just wanted to suggest that you could also include a hyperlink to the ABC ONLINE RADIO STREAM in the EXTERNAL LINKS section, in addition to its inclusion under the references section, as it may be possible that more people would navigate to it from there, and enjoy listening to the play. Just an idea.

Whilst I'm here, I would also ask you... Did you listen to the radio play? If so, I was wondering as to your opinion on the subject matter, specifically, was Agata in a real person? For this question is what brought me to your wiki in the first place :)

Thanks again, and keep up the great work

Luc

Upsidedahead (talk) 11:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Venetian or Italian?
I notice that this hasn't been discussed here before. The article was recently changed to say 'Italian' and then to say 'Venetian', which linked to a disambiguation page, so I reverted back to an earlier version that at least linked 'Venetian' to 'Republic of Venice'. I can see calling him Italian, with a link to Italian people, or sticking with 'Venetian' as now linked - thoughts? Mikenorton (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's actually been changed numerous times, back and forth. Both are true.  In cases like this (and here is another one that just happened a few hours ago) I suggest going with what other major encyclopedias use.  The New Grove, Britannica online, and Baker's all have "Italian", going with the broadest modern-day category.  This way we avoid having to do our own interpretation of pre-nation state nationality and ethnicity -- and have a solid defense when nationalists show up to push one way or another.  Antandrus  (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The legal nationality of Vivaldi was Venetian not Italian. For a right and complete information, I suggest to insert for all pre-Italian unity people the real legal nationality. Till 1866 Italian nationality didn't exist. Please, don't confuse Italian with Italic. Vivaldi could be considered italic but not Italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.45.36.172 (talk) 00:07, 20:48, 23 August 2013


 * But Vivaldi himself did consciously identify with Italian nationality, as he explicitly mentioned in the libretto of his opera "Adelaide" (Verona, 1735):
 * "...It was likewise suitable that this drama were dedicated to a Venetian patrician [Antonio Grimani] inasmuch as the history from which the plot is drawn could only be highly displeasing to a good Italian - who is not like so many are today, hostile to his nation - making him remember how, with the last Italian kings chased out, poor Italy fell back under the foreign yoke, no more to free itself from it, to which most deplorable disgrace only the illustrious Venetian Republic gives some compensation, since there from its birth up to our own day Italian liberty is preserved; may God protect it till the end of time."
 * "Antonio Vivaldi", by Remo Giazotto, pgs. 255-56
 * JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.152 (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nationalist division, on lines like Italian, Venetian or so, is more a mindset from XIXth century on. The issue is for sure hot-topic and controversial, in the current political situation (see also Venetian nationalism). Italian at that time was identifying more a cultural attitude and above all the belonging to a geographical area - which is true also today - but not the belonging to the contemporary nation-state: actually Metternich could state that Italy is only a geographical expression, which could sound out-of-date in 1847 but was for sure the current thinking before the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy. Indeed, the Kingdom of Italy that Vivaldi mentions was an High Middle Ages entity, ruling on nowadays North and Central Italy without the South (and Venice). The concept of nation itself was not defined as it is today, and e.g. the University of Padua (main and only university of the Republic of Venice) had a list of nations which simply meant the existing kingdoms or territories of that time. If the concept I mean looks difficult to catch, think e.g. to Austria: nobody would say they are not ethnically German people, but their nationality is Austrian, and indeed the En.Wiki page states that people from countries with a German-speaking majority such as Austria, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other historically-tied countries like Luxembourg, have developed their own national identity (not ethnic identity).
 * So, in the end, I think that we should define what do we like to show: his ethnicity, his cultural belonging or his nationality. Many people from the then Republic of Venice are simply called Venetian on En.Wiki, and that was for sure their nationality at that time; others are listed according to cultural categories e.g. Tiziano in Italian painters (of the Venetian School). I think that a good compromise solution could be writing of Vivaldi as Italian composer from the Republic of Venice or Venetian and Italian composer, so we can also include the link to the List of Italian composers. What do you think about?
 * Filippo83 (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ethnically he was clearly Italian. So imho we can keep Italian. We can add the citizenship by saying he was from the Republic of Venice. This method is already used in several articles of wikipedia.--93.36.5.41 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the lead says 'Italian.' The very second sentence also in the lead already says he was born in Venice, with a link to the city/Republic article. Isn't that clear enough? What else would you need? Just curious, thanks. warshy (¥¥) 17:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Vivaldi did not die a pauper
He lived at a very noble address in the city, his burial was not a pauper's burial, but a regular and rather expensive 3rd-class-burial. And the lack of an inventory of his estate rules out any claims that Vivaldi was poor. Furthermore Haydn had no connection whatsoever with Vivaldi's exequies. Some nonsensical myths will obviously never die.--Suessmayr (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Strange, then, that the epitaph in Vienna dedicated to Vivaldi marks the spot of the original "Armensünder-Gottesacker" (cemetery for poor sinners) where he was buried.
 * H.C. Robbin's Landon in his biography "Vivaldi:Voice of the Barogue", pgs. 7-8, has this to say on the matter:
 * "When Vivaldi died in 1741, in great poverty, in Vienna, he was already forgotten. His body was buried in as cheap a fashion as possible in a small cemetery outside the city walls. His grave, and even the cemetery itself, have long since disappeared. It is with a certain frisson that we immediately think of Mozart and his shameful end - also in an unmarked grave, his only company the five other anonymous dead bodies and the quicklime poured over them to speed them on their way to dust. In fact for years it was not even known that Vivaldi had died in Vienna, so little was importance attached to the once-celebrated violinist and composer."
 * The record of his burial makes explicit reference to "Kleingleuth" ("poor-bells"). See "Antonio Vivaldi: His Life and Work", by Walter Kolneder (pgs. 21-22) for the breakdown of the funeral expenses, and the subsequent conclusion that this could only have been a pauper's burial.
 * Indeed, no mention of Haydn being present.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.152 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.152 (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of what Robbins [not "Robbbin's"!] Landon wrote about Vivaldi's funeral in his 1993 book is hogwash. "Kleingleuth" does not mean "poor-bells", it means "small bells". Robbins Landon never saw the primary sources and just fantasized freely on old errors, set up by Kolneder and Alan Kendall. Vivaldi did not die in poverty. Especially the reference to Mozart ("his only company the five other anonymous dead bodies and the quicklime poured over them to speed them on their way to dust") is total rubbish. The nonsensical narrative of Mozart having been buried in a mass grave has been debunked ages ago.--Suessmayr (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of what Robbins [not "Robbbin's"!] Landon wrote about Vivaldi's funeral in his 1993 book is hogwash. "Kleingleuth" does not mean "poor-bells", it means "small bells". Robbins Landon never saw the primary sources and just fantasized freely on old errors, set up by Kolneder and Alan Kendall. Vivaldi did not die in poverty. Especially the reference to Mozart ("his only company the five other anonymous dead bodies and the quicklime poured over them to speed them on their way to dust") is total rubbish. The nonsensical narrative of Mozart having been buried in a mass grave has been debunked ages ago.--Suessmayr (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Vivaldi catalogs
Hi, all. I have added a short section on the evolution of Vivaldi catalogs, ending in the RV numbers we all know today, and keeping text about that catalog. Old recordings were driving me nuts with several different numbering systems. It is worse than Scarlatti with Longo and Kirkpatrick, there are at least 3 + RVs for Vivaldi. By the time I straightened myself out, I thought I might as well share it here.

Where to put it? It goes well right after Posthumous Reputation, because the rise in mid-20th century reputation was driven in part by the catalogers (esp. at the Istituto Italiano Antonio Vivaldi), and that heightened interest was accompanied by the discovery of new compositions (detailed in the Posthumous Rep section) that obsoleted old catalogs and brought newer ones to dominance. Then comes In Popular Culture and finally Works. That section's intro statement, that works are specified by RV numbers, can be shortened if this little cataloging synopsis flies. Thanks, Jerry-va (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The notes on cataloguing clarify a lot, but should the Vivaldi Edition aural catalogue be mentioned somewhere? This seems to me to be incredibly relevant - but I don't know whether it's right for Wikipedia, nor where to start this conversation / with changes. and for further info. Rachel 14:00 GMT 12 March 2013 --86.132.239.246 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Second perhaps only to Johann Sebastian Bach" Really?
"Today, he ranks among the most popular and widely recorded of Baroque composers, second perhaps only to Johann Sebastian Bach,[1] who himself was deeply influenced by Vivaldi's work."

I seriously doubt the above claim because the first two Baroque composers who come to my mind, when the subject of Baroque music is discussed would be Johann Sebastian Bach and George Frideric Handel (né Georg Friedrich Händel). Handel, for me at least, is more popular nowadays than Vivaldi and my guess is Handel is more widely recorded than Vivaldi.Toddabearsf (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this depends on the method used to measure "most popular" and "widely recorded". My first impulse is to agree with you, but my second thought is to check some statistics. A not-too-scientific measure of "recordedness" is to check the numbers on Arkivmusic, which shows J. S. Bach at 7,465 recordings, Handel at 3,051, and Vivaldi at 2,179. This would seem to support your view, but unfortunately is not a "reliable source" as defined on Wikipedia, for several reasons. On the other hand, I'm not sure just how reliable a source Mfiles.co.uk might be (the cited authority for this claim), since it makes several claims that have been disputed on this article—amongst others the myth that Haydn as a boy sang at Vivaldi's funeral—and in fact does not say anything at all about numbers of recordings or "popularity" (however that might be measured). It declares him "Second only to Bach" (presumably both of them eclipse Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Frank Zappa, Babe Ruth, and the Dalai Lama in some way) and "one of the most famous and celebrated of composers from the Baroque Period". Perhaps we ought to change the claim on this article to something like this last statement, and remove the comparison to Bach on grounds that the article does not say in what way they rank so absolutely as #1 and #2.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the cited source for this nebulous claim, mfiles.co.uk, is not of the highest standard – which would be required for such assertion. Removing it seems uncontroversial. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Siblings
The by 82.132.233.85 of Antonio's siblings is in line with fr:Antonio Vivaldi and it:Antonio Vivaldi, so I didn't revert it. User:Jerome Kohl did, and I wonder whether the FR & IT articles might be wrong about this. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My reasoning in reverting is that the cited source for the five-sibling hypothesis has been in place for a long time, and so I assume it does not give the three newly added names. I have not yet checked it to verify that this is so, but of course the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It appears that the soure cited here (Talbot 1978) may be superannuated. The French Wikipedia cites a more recent (1993) French biography, but the Italian Wikipedia cites the same source by Talbot, only to a different page number (41 instead of 37). Is it possible that Talbot contradicts himself, or does the difference lie in the fact that some of the siblings died in infancy? (However, in that case the French and Italian Wikipedia versions would only account for a difference of two, not three.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Antonio Vivaldi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110323021812/http://www.anima-veneziana.narod.ru:80/index.html to http://www.anima-veneziana.narod.ru/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Not baptised twice
"Vivaldi's official church baptism took place two months later." This could be made clearer. The church function was not a repeat baptism; its purpose was merely to supply ritual ceremonies (exorcisms and anointings) omitted during the emergency baptism performed by the midwife. 90.255.138.14 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have reworded this passage to clarify the situation, as you have explained here. 140.198.245.203 (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * However, I think I heard somewhere that the usual practice was to "repeat" the Baptism itself as well at such a ceremony - but of course with the words "si non es baptizatus" preceding the formula (a so-called sub condicione Baptism).--2001:A61:260C:C01:ED03:BA5C:94FB:7615 (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

"but after his death his popularity dwindled"
Vivaldi's reported loss of popularity and death in poverty in 1741 is widely accepted as fact. However, I would like to challenge this view, as it is inconsistent with recent research, including text already included in other Wikipedia articles. Frenchman Michelle Corrette composed a Laudate Dominum based on the Spring concerto in 1765. French philosopher and part-time composer Jean-Jacques Rousseau also reworked the Spring concerto for solo flute ca. 1775, 34 years after Vivaldi's death:

The Wikipedia entry on Vivaldi's Opus 3 includes this paragraph: "Talbot (2010) gives a detailed description, drawn from contemporary accounts, of the performances and reception of the concertos in Britain and Ireland in the eighteenth century. The most popular concerto from the set was Op.3, No.5, RV 519 which was commonly referred to as "Vivaldi's Fifth". Two other concertos from the set were also played by the public, Op.3, Nos.3 and 12. In a London catalogue from 1780, the solo part for each of the three concertos was advertised for a sum of sixpence per concerto; and in a different catalogue from 1790, the solo part with an added bass line was advertised at a price of one shilling per concerto."

I would therefore suggest the following alteration to the first sentence about his immediate legacy: "During his lifetime, Vivaldi was popular in many countries throughout Europe, including France and Britain, but his popularity declined in the 50 years after his death, in common with most other Baroque composers."

Religion
I see no reason why the edit concerning Catholicism is unreliable, as 'Encyclopaedia Britannica' is used elsewhere in the article. Additionally, the term "secular priest" is defined as a "priest without congregation or order". If Vivaldi took his position as an unattached cleric seriously, what else could be meant by "religious bigot" other than an intolerant Catholic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.194.136 (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Catholicism" just seems unnecessary - there's no doubting his religion. As to his bigotry, the source does not support him being "widely considered" as such. Mikenorton (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The direct quotation from the source reads "Despite this circumstance [his illness], he took his status as a secular priest seriously and even earned the reputation of a religious bigot." To me, "reputation" seems synonymous with "widely considered". His Catholicism may be straightforward, but does that make it irrelevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7F0D:DD01:29DE:4912:23D0:D1C4 (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You might care to read the article Secular clergy, which will help you understand the difference between taking seriously this particular institution as opposed to the Catholic Church as a whole. And Mikenorton is correct about the source not verifying any widespread reputation, only that one or a few persons at some time regarded him as bigoted.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what your first point means. A secular priest is a clergyman unattached to any congregation or order, so if it is a role he took seriously this still implies religious fervour. Furthermore, the idea that the source is referring to another institution is undermined the phrase "religious bigot". As for the second point, would "some considered" be more appropriate than "widely considered"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.189.120 (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "While regular clergy take religious vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience and follow the rule of life of the institute to which they belong, secular clergy do not take vows, and they live in the world at large (secularity) rather than at a religious institute." This contradicts the notion that taking the role seriously constitutes an especially fervent belief in Catholicism. Furthermore, in the context of an overwhelmingly Catholic community, what would such "bigotry" refer to? Catholic-Protestant sectarianism? Antisemitism? Misogyny? (After all, he was for some time employed at an orphanage for girls.) The source is hopelessly vague, and must be relying on some more ample discussion elsewhere. Have you checked in the Brittanica for what sources might be used for so curious a claim?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, it took a little digging, but Kolneder confirms this was the opinion of just one person (Ernst Ludwig Gerber), who met Vivaldi in his old age and regarded him at that time as "extraordinarily bigoted". Gerber was evidently Protestant, which may explain what he meant by the word. This particular bit in the Encyclopædia Brittanica (including the association with the secular clergy, which Kolneder does not verify) must come from one of the anonymous editors, rather that from the main author, Michael Talbot, since Talbot does not mention it in his New Grove article or in his extended biography of Vivaldi, nor is it mentioned in The Vivaldi Compendium which Talbot edited. Perhaps the remark really does not belong in the section on Vivaldi's childhood and early education, but I have left it there for the time being.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding the origin of this assertion. However, I would just like to note my issue with your earlier claim that the term 'secular priest' excludes the possibility of religious fervour. While I agree that the term denotes nothing extraordinary on its own (due to their 'secular' status), the fact that Vivaldi took the title (which meant he officially remained a member of the priesthood) "seriously" (to the point of "bigotry") is what implies a notable loyalty to Catholicism. Additionally, Encyclopaedia Britannica defines secular clergy as "not belonging to a religious order or congregation". Surely Vivaldi falls into this category? However, this discussion is rendered largely irrelevant in light of the accounts discussed by Kolneder. Your effort is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.161.247 (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ernst Ludwig Gerber certainly never met Antonio Vivaldi in his old age, considering the former was born well after the latter's death. I have not had Kolneder's book in my hands but I looked up Vivaldi in Gerber's 1792 Lexikon (the presumed source of the assertion), and the entry includes the following (my translation):
 * "In his old age, around 1730, he was extraordinarily bigoted; so that the rosary never left his hand except when he picked up the pen to write an opera, which was still very often the case." (original: "In seinem Alter, ums Jahr 1730, war er außerordentlich bigott; so daß den Rosenkranz nicht eber aus der Hand legte, bis er die Feder ergriff, um eine Oper zu schreiben, welches noch sehr oft der Fall war.")
 * I agree the above is a display of bigotry, though not on Vivaldi's part. If this is our source then the article is just perpetuating a modish late 18th century gentleman's anti-Catholic slur. 86.2.13.122 (talk) 11:08, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, Pope Benedict said in a homily that Antonio Vivaldi, while he did not say Mass, did dutifully pray his Breviary. Though I don't know what source he knew that from. (If true, it makes some sense that a Protestant observer who sees a music composer praying two hours a day, as the length then was, out of official liturgical books which he cannot alter, says "that's a bigot" even if he otherwise say, displays quite some fondness for the laissez-faire-as-long-as-it's-loyal-to-the-Church attitude so deeply enshrined in popular Catholicism, which btw I consider a generally good thing, but I digress.)--2001:A61:260C:C01:ED03:BA5C:94FB:7615 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Restoring the infobox for Vivaldi
Hi all,

I wanted to kick off a discussion about the infobox for Vivaldi which was recently removed by Jerome Kohl for the following reason: please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page, per WikiProject Composers and WikiProject Composers

I think the infobox on Vivaldi's page was useful and a positive contribution to the article. The infobox (as it was) was very concise and did not contain any frivolous information. The question is whether the presence of the infobox will attract further additions to it or not.

I would be happy to hear arguments to the contrary.

Aristipp0s (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to hear arguments to the contrary, as well, though the likelihood of attracting further additions is scarcely the only issue raised at WikiProject Composers. The main thing is that the infobox added nothing useful to the article, merely repeating data printed right next to it in the article's lead section. There was (and still is) a polite message at the top of the page beginning "please do not add an infobox without first obtaining consensus on the article Talk page ...". Did you believe this was merely an ornamental flourish?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, one more thing: the date formatting and several alleged facts in the box were at odds with the content of the article. For example, his nationality is stated as "Italian" in the article, but the infobox said "Venetian". This issue already has a considerable history on this talk page. It also said he died in "Wien", but this is the English Wikipedia, and in English the city's name is "Vienna".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of the message. I did not add the infobox. I am perfectly fine with a consensus being obtained first. An infobox should not contain information which is not in the body of the article so redundancy is an objection to infoboxes in general not an objection to this particular infobox. The issue with inaccuracies in the infobox could also be rectified without removing the infobox. Though I accept that it was right to remove the infobox until consensus is obtained one way or another.

Also, there is no need to be condescending (ornamental flourish). Thanks.

Aristipp0s (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I see that the inbox was added (directly above the message requesting this not be done without first obtaining consensus) by User:Alberto Davide Lorenzi. I have seen this happen so many times that it does raise the question in my mind of whether there is any use leaving such messages, or if it would be better just to bulldoze the added infobox with a rude comment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, appreciate it. I should also add that I am fairly new to editing and was unfamiliar until today with the somewhat contentious issue of infoboxes. I've made a point of this on the talk-page as even the Composers wikiproject leaves open the possibility of a consensus on an infobox for a particular article. I'm happy to leave it here and see if any other editors have opinions. Having read up on it I can imagine an infobox will be rejected by interested editors but I wanted to follow the protocol that's laid out for this in the first place and try and be constructive. Cheers Aristipp0s (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)