Talk:List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi

Table form?
The fixed-width font sections look awkward. Its nice having "columns" though. How hard would it be to make it into a table format? DavidRF (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it; it will probably look like this the second  third  fourth draft now looks like this:

Comments

 * ✅ The sortability of the "Instrumentation" column will need a bit of work so that "2 violins" are sorted together with "Violin". There are also some obvious targets for wikilinks, e.g. Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione; there may be more, e.g. instruments like the Theorbo, Chalumeau. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty nice. The best thing to do would be to make seperate tables for each section -- the RV numbers are already grouped that way. I don't see any real need for 2 violin concerti to be grouped with 1 violin concerti, considering the amount and the fact there's also concerti for 3 and 4. ? Melodia Chaconne ? (talk) 11:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with the suggestion to split the table into sections: it would result in no worthwhile gain and the current page with its genre/instrumentation sections may as well stay unchanged. A single table across all sections will obviously allow more comprehensive sorting. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good - huge improvement, of course. I agree that having one table would be good, especially for sorting by RV number, however this begs the question of how the list should be ordered in its passive state. Should it be by RV number allowing resorting by type etc? (I assume this includes the material listed on the compositions page, but not the biography Works section. Is that right?) -- Klein  zach  08:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC) PS Very minor point, IMO it's better to spell out and avoid abbreviations (BC) especially as we don't have to worry about ink. -- Klein  zach  08:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The passive state of the sortable table would be as presented above, which in turn is taken from the existing page. After a particular sort has been performed by a reader, there is no way to return to that initial order, except by reloading/refreshing the page.
 * The works to be included in the table are exactly as shown above; they come from the sections "Concerti", "Sinfonias", "Sonatas" from this page (List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi). In my opinion, the works still listed on the page Antonio Vivaldi should be checked for inclusion on this page, and then be deleted from that page. Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the table is implicitly by the form of composition (in its passive form) then I think that column should be on the left — though whatever arrangement you opt for it will be a huge step forward. I agree about integrating the works still listed on the page Antonio Vivaldi. -- Klein zach  11:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the column arrangement regarding the table's natural sort order; the order as shown above is simply a result of the original material, which seems quite logical to me (RV first) — but I'm not fanatical about it. It's easy enough to swap the columns using my tool WTROC.
 * I forgot to address your point about the use of "BC" in my last response: 1) using the explicit text would make the table cells for works with many instruments unnecessarily wide; 2) as it occurs in every work (I didn't explicitly check, but it seems that way), it's unnecessarily repetitive; 3) although we don't have to deal with ink, the graphic appearance of the full term would, in my opinion, be overwhelming. Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought about your last point. I wonder whether small type might be the answer? Would that be practical? -- Klein zach  14:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Shown with basso continuo above in the 3rd draft. That certainly lessens the impacts of points 1 and 3. However, it increases the size of the Wikipedia markup code for the table by 33% from 52,800 characters to 70,000. TANSTAAFL } Frankly, I don't like it very much; I imagine a reader seeing the table for the first time must wonder: "Why is basso continuo shown in this small type? Does it reflect its lack of importance?" Maybe I'm over-interpreting and over-second-guessing, but I think the previous "BC" version did the job best.
 * I agree it doesn't look good. Does 'basso continuo' occur for every work? If so perhaps a note to say that would be sufficient? I.e. with no BC or basso continuo appearing in the table itself. If there are exceptions perhaps we could say 'unless noted'. Might that be a solution? -- Klein zach  14:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 3rd draft also reordered the columns, so they now follow normal narrative prose: «Concerto for violin, strings, basso continuo in C major, RV 180, "Il piacere" from Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione»; this I like.
 * A new issue: I think "Genre" or "Form" as a heading would be better than "Type", but I can't decide between the two. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO 'form' or 'musical form'. I don't think a concerto is a genre! -- Klein zach  14:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fourth draft above; ready to go? Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks good. -- Klein zach  02:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So transferred, except for some minor disagreements with Kleinzach's to the capitalisation of some words. "Proteo" (Proteus) should be capitalised, as should "Santissima" when followed by a feast day. Also: "Violino in tromba" is not a title (I think) but a note about a specifc instrument. Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK I've changed the other Proteo for consistency. -- Klein zach  01:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidently, for anyone wondering where the list came from (in such a weird looking format), I'd wager it was here. ? Melodia Chaconne ? (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sacred music
I've now converted the Sacred music into a table - however I don't know how to turn off the sorting for the notes with this coding. Maybe Michael can tell me? -- Klein zach  02:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The column in question needs to be preceded by the text: class="unsortable" (see: Help:Table). In this case:

!Form!! RV !!class="unsortable"|Notes
 * I would have done it right now, except I'm not sure whether you want to stick with the column heading "Form". Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not sure about 'form' either. Any suggestions? -- Klein zach  05:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Name? Title? Work? Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. How about 'Work'? It's the broadest and simplest. -- Klein zach  07:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We also have a problem with capitalization. Latin isn't my best language - and you corrected my last Italian effort. Like to have a go? -- Klein zach  07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit test
DavidRF writes "List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi won't let me save edits on the talk page. I get a long wait cursor and then it tells me I have IP issues and I should log off and log back on.  I don't seem to have any problems on other pages." I am writing this as a test. It can be deleted afterwards. -- Klein zach  22:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Test reply.DavidRF (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Michael Bednarek fixed it. There was unclosed tag above somewhere.  Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Vivaldi Dresden Concertos
I've seen several recordings of worked collected as the "Dresden Concertos". I see very little mention of such a grouping at List of compositions by Antonio Vivaldi (except for RV577). Is this a common grouping of concertos that should be mentioned here? Is there a story behind why they were written? Thanks.DavidRF (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Cantatas
Looks like the cantatas (RV 649-686) are missing, probably due to being secular but not operatic. Anyone want to tackle adding them in? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What are "P" numbers (and "F" numbers), and how do they relate?
Many recordings give "F" numbers, which sometimes appear to be indentical to Opus numbers; but then a number of recordings give "P" numbers, sometimes alone, and sometimes together with "F" and/or RV numbers.

For instance,
 * Concerto in C for Two Trumpets, F. IX:I must be Op. 9 #1, and
 * Concerto in C for Mandolin, F. V:I must be Op. 5 #1.

But then I'll find "P" numbers alone, such as
 * Concerto in D for Flute, P. 205
 * Concerto in G for Flute, P. 140

And what are these? Unless there are subtle differences between them, they sound to me to be the same concerto. I had earlier somewhere identified both as also being RV. 533, which I now see listed here under this number; but what can these "F" and "P" numbers refer to? Opus numbers as listed here don't even go up to 47.
 * Concerto in C for Two Flutes, Strings & Cembalo, Op. 47 #2 (J-P Rampal, I Musici di Zagreb, on Vox); vs.
 * Concerto in C for Two Flutes, P. 76 (J-P Rampal, I Solisti Veneti, on CBS Odyssey)

Any ideas? Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This may help a little. No idea where the Op. 47 came from though. Wouldn't be surprised if it were a mistake on Vox's part, considering it's Vox. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks. Actually it is exactly what I was looking for; seems to answer all (or most) of my questions. Might permission be obtained to incorporate the Classical Net cross-refs into the Wiki article? Or at least it should be given more prominence rather than being just one of several External links at the bottom of the page, with no additional info given. I'll try adding a note there.Milkunderwood (talk) 23:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Between the cross-listings given at Classical Net, and Wikipedia's Instrumentation column (plus the Form and Notes columns), I've so far been able to puzzle out pretty much everything I'm trying to track down - but I'm at a total loss on this one: There's no telling what instruments may be substituted in a performance, but horns stand out and don't lend themselves to substitution. The closest I can find that includes a horn is RV 568, but it's not a very satisfactory guess. Milkunderwood (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Concerto in F Major for 2 Oboes, Bassoon, Horn, Violin, Strings and Organ, Op. 64 [sic] No. 2 (Vox ACD 8036: Musici di San Marco, Alberto Lizzio, Cond.: I Allegro - II Largo - III Allegro).

Minor Edit in Name of Piece
Concerto for Flute, strings in D major, RV 428, was, I believe, mistitled as "Il gardellino" (for which there in no Italian translation). I have loved this piece for many years, and have always seen it titled "Il cardellino" (meaning "the goldfinch"). I have always loved the fact that you can always hear, in Vivaldi's music, the things after which the pieces are titled (for example, the thunderstorm developing during a hot summer day in "Summer" of "the Four Seasons"). In "Il cardellino" you can actually hear the little goldfinch in the music and imagine his swooping little flights across the field. That is why I have always loved this piece.

Mrs rockefeller (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a beautiful piece, I've loved the whole Op10 as soon as I heard them, excellent! However, I always assumed that the English 'goldfinch' translation was not a transcription, and that it seemed to me that 'gardellino' was Italian for "garden bird". Google translate detects 'il gardellino' as Italian language, but simply echoes it as English translation. I put in 'garden bird' and it was translated into Italian as, 'giardino degli uccelli'. Garden = giardino. Other search results list it as 'Il gardelino' as well.
 * I will therefore change that back, if it hasn't been already. HonestIntelligence (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Vivaldi RV409 Is NOT a "double" concerto for Cello & Bassoon
RV409 is a Cello Concerto, E minor, with String Orchestra.
 * http://imslp.org/wiki/Cello_Concerto_in_E_minor,_RV_409_(Vivaldi,_Antonio)
 * "The Master Musicians Series" books; Vivadi by Michael Tolbot: Appendix B, Catalogue of Works (Listed by RV number). ISBN: 0-460-02282-2

Consulting the Talbot book reveals only one Cello Concerto in E minor, RV4O9. I have a CD with this piece played on it, Google "Pierre Fournier,Vivaldi Cello Concerto E minor", to hear it on YouTube!

The website: http://www.uquebec.ca/musique/catal/vivaldi/vivacat4.html cited as a reference for the article describes RV409 as "Concerto, en mi mineur, pour violoncelle, cordes et basse continue (basson)". I assume some source specifies the bassoon as the bass instrument. It is NOT indicated by this as a solo part of a "double" concerto.

RV numbers for "double" concertos
The Tolbot book breaks up the RV Catalogue with subtitles eg. indicating Concertos for two instruments and string orchestra. These begin with RV531, G minor, two cellos, and end with RV548, B flat major, violin & oboe (=RV764).

Late entries for the RV catalogue
Tolbot says these are listed from RV751-768

Solo concertos with E minor signature
There is also a sonata for cello in E minor, RV40.
 * Violin, RV273-281, 10 in total (275 & 275a)
 * Cello, RV409
 * Flute, RV430-432, 3 in total
 * Bassoon, RV484
 * 4 Violins, RV550

So not a common key.

Ofrah Harnoy
I have Ofrah Harnoy CDs which list a Cello & Bassoon Concerto as RV409. This is incorrect, and I wrote to them at the time to tell them; the re-release carries the same mistake. I can find no listing in the RV catalogue for a Cello & Bassoon concerto; this may be a new discovery or an arrangement of a Sonata or some such.

Having listened to this Harnoy recital again, it still seems peculiar to me. Most of it seems to my ear to be written by Vivaldi, but some of it I'm not so sure!

HonestIntelligence (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Works "by" RV number, aren't
It seems from records of a discussion here back in 2009 that someone decided that the tables in the section labelled as Works by RV number ought instead be sorted in alphabetical order. This seems an odd decision because as far as I know it's not in keeping with any similar list for another composer. Other such lists I'm aware of on Wikipedia are ordered based on chronology and/or the relevant catalogue (in some lucky cases that's one and the same thing).

Personally, I also find it difficult to work with, and I'm curious to know whether anyone else feels similarly. For the instrumental works in particular, there's no particular logic to the alphabetical presentation. Each time that I try to look for information on something, I end up clicking on the RV column to sort the table into a form where I can find what I'm looking for.

At the very least, if the table isn't changed the heading should be. The works are not arranged by RV number.

Finally, we appear to be missing some kinds of works, for example RV 693 La Senna Festeggiante does not have an entry, it only gets mentioned in a note for a related instrumental work.Orfeocookie (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Before the list was converted to a table, it looked ; as a table, it started where the works within each form were listed by RV numbers. Over time, editors have added works wherever they saw fit, but Ctrl in a browser and the sorting buttons should allow to find works or determine missing ones. Feel free to add La Sena festeggiante; I'm not sure in which section this serenata should be placed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure which section it should be placed in either. I think one of my issues with the current arrangement is that the RV catalogue clearly is designed to group works (for example, the flute concertos are numbered together, the bassoon concertos are numbered together and so on with works arranged by key in each group) and I feel it would be better to follow its approach rather than invent a new one. However, I don't know the RV method well enough to be certain whether the serenata belongs in one of the existing tables or belongs in a category that just isn't mentioned in the article at the moment. I think what we need is an external source that explains how the RV catalogue is arranged.Orfeocookie (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Nulla in mundo pax sincera
Should Nulla in mundo pax sincera, RV 630, a sacred motet composed by Antonio Vivaldi in 1735, be in this list somewhere?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It should and it is. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)