Wikipedia:Peer review/Monteverdi's lost operas/archive1

Monteverdi's lost operas
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've been working on this article on and off (mainly off) for at least a couple of years. Monteverdi isn't a "core topic" and I doubt if he achieves eye-catching traffic scores, but he is a key figure in the history of opera. For this reason the operas he wrote and which are now lost are of interest to the musically minded (or to some of them anyway). If you can't stand the music there's some nice pics. All aspects open for review and all comments are welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Tim riley
 * Background
 * "Monteverdi's long creative life is largely contained in two phases" – I see what you mean, but it reads oddly. Not sure if it's the present tense, but I feel it could be put more smoothly. Perhaps something on the lines of "Most of M's works during his long life were composed in two phases…"?
 * I have rephrased, I hope more smoothly. Check it out Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "suggests that the high rate of loss is indicative that in that age" – creaks a bit, perhaps. What about something to the effect that he "suggests that the high rate of loss indicates that in Monteverdi's times…"?
 * Rephrased, more or less per you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For Mantua
 * Caption of image. You might consider adding that Bacchus is shown as a medium pace right arm seam bowler, and has just been called for No Ball by the umpiress on his right.
 * I agree, Bacchus's bowling action left much to be desired, but I understand that he was primarily a batsman.
 * That riposte is without doubt the most brilliant reply I have ever had on WP, blast you! Tim riley (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not so brilliant, really. As a shot in the dark, I googled "Bacchus cricketer", and bingo, good ole Wikipedia did the rest!


 * "Ariadne whom he believes will…" – not an accusative, if we're being strictly grammatical; either "whom he believes to be" or "who he believes will be"
 * rephrased, and got rid of th "who v. whom" conundrum. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Frederico Follini? He's "Federico" elsewhere in the Wikipedia Monteverdi articles. I will check them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed he is (my typo), and I hope as "Follino" rather than "Follini"


 * Monteverdi's fellow-composer – I'm a bit puzzled by the quote. This chap was only 20 years younger than Monteverdi, so why is he talking of "early music"?
 * I simply recorded the quote. I don't know what Gagliano meant by "early music", so I've nipped that out of the quote. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Le nozze d'Enea in Lavinia
 * "to better demonstrate the range of his musical genius" – you know, and I know, that the taboo against split infinitives is very silly, but many otherwise sensible people subscribe to it, and if I were you I'd play for safety and rejig the sentence to avoid it.
 * Point taken, reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

And that meagre collection is the sum of my quibbles and suggestions. I've tinkered with a few typos, but please check that you're happy with my changes. One oddity: I ran the dab checker, and it came up with a single link, "Dionysius": but there is no mention of Dionysius in the article. Very odd. You'll be adding alt-text before going on to FAC, I assume.
 * I am unable to explain the mystery dablink. At one time I had Bacchus erroneously pipeliked to Dionysius instead of Dionysus. I removed this a while ago, yet somehow the dablink maintains a ghostly presence. I'll ask someone with technicl skills, e.g. Ruhrfisch, how I can fix this. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I thoroughly enjoyed the article, and alternated between feeling indignant on Monteverdi's behalf for the run-around he got from his aristocratic bosses and thinking he was quite capable of pretty strenuous running around on his own account. – Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing a subject not dearest to your heart, but you's probably prefer to read about the lost operas than the extant ones! I think I've fixed your concerns, but I will probably have to rejig further, to meet the blessed E's comments below. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from

Note that I've discovered Template:Efn which is wonderful for getting rid of that obnoxious syntax Lead:
 * "He was one of the first exponents of the emergent genre of opera, and played a significant role during the first half of the 17th century in its development from a courtly entertainment into the principal form of public musical theatre." wow, that's a mouthful - can we break this up a bit? Leads generally are less "dense" than body text ... this is pretty dense for the lead.
 * See my note below on the lead generally Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Not sure on the MOS for this ... but for "In the following 36 years he wrote nine further operas,..." I think you want either "In the following 36 years he wrote 9 further operas,..." or "In the following thirty-six years he wrote nine further operas,.."
 * See below


 * Quickie explanation for intermedi? I know you have the link but...
 * Brief explanation added. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does L'orfeo also survive? If so, we probably need to make that clearer in the sentence starting "Of the works..."
 * See note below


 * "Of seven other operas he composed either in part or in whole, the music has been lost with the exception of fragments." Does this mean the words/libretto survive? Or that the only thing surviving is fragments of the music? If the latter - I think "Fragments of the music for seven other operas he wrote either in part or in full also survive." would be better phrasing, less ambiguous.
 * Wording has been replaced, per below Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Most of the information relating to the lost operas has been deduced from contemporary documents, from which it is not always possible to determine how much music for individual works was actually written." Totally lost me with what you're trying to say in the second part here - Actually, I'm totally lost on the whole second paragraph of the lead. What are we covering in this article - the seven works for which we have something still surviving? I think the lead needs to be explicit here - in one of the first sentences - stating what we're covering here. Also .. I would expect a listing of all the titles covered by this article in the lead.


 * WaYYY too many sentences start "Of the ..." or "Of (number)..."


 * Following your criticisms I re-read the lead and found it unsatisfactory. I have rewritten it; I hope it's now clear that (a) the article is about the seven "lost" operas out of the ten Monteverdi wrote, (b) that apart from a couple of fragments the music for these seven works has disappeared, although in some cases the libretto has been found and (c) of the seven "lost" works it is known that four were completed and performed and three were aborted by Monteverdi. These are the critical points, though I shall probably add a litle more to the lead as this review progresses. But please let me know if anything remains unclear at present. Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Greatly improved, thank you! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Background:
 * "maestro di capella" is .. what?
 * translation in lead Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "This timespan of more than 50 years covers the period from the inception of opera as a form of courtly entertainment in the final decade of the 16th century, to a point towards the middle of the 17th century when the genre had achieved widespread acceptance as the principal form of public musical theatre." Ouch. Convoluted and I got lost somewhere in there... can we break this down a bit?
 * Yes, rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The Italian word "opera", short for opera in musica ("musical work"), was not applied generally before 1634." Sounds awkward. Suggest "The Italian word "opera", short for opera in musica ("musical work"), was not in general use before 1634."
 * Your suggestion is adopted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "The first works now generally considered as "operas" are Jacopo Peri's Dafne of 1597, and Euridice (1600) for which both Peri and Giulio Caccini provided music." I think what this is trying to say (but it took rereading it twice) is that Peri wrote Dafne by himself and collaborated with Caccini on Euridice? Can we make this clearer?
 * It's not that simple. They were rivals rather than collaborators, and wrote their musical settings independently. I don't want to get into this, but I have tweaked the wording slightly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "...and the use of recitative, aria and arioso as well as choruses in the vocal parts." Need to explicate the words "recitative", "aria" and "arioso" a bit here so you don't lose your readers to other articles.
 * Hmm, I have to disagree here. These words are the common currency of opera; even people who know little of opera will usually have an idea what these words mean, and for the tiny minority who don't, the links are there. The alternative would be to ruin the prose flow with paranthetical explanations, e.g. for recitative ("a form of sung speech used between arias and other formal numbers to advance the plot"). With less usual tems such as "intermedi", I have incorporated a brief explanation, but to apply it to the extent you suggest is not, I think, justified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "For example, Monteverdi's torneo Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) is a work whose precise genre has proved particularly difficult to define." But apparantly it's a torneo? If it really is subject to debate, suggest not defining it in the sentence - looks very ... strange.
 * Good point - definition removed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Monteverdi composed, in all, 24 works for the stage. Of these, ten are usually classified as operas, of which the music for seven has been lost apart from a few fragments." I think you need all numerals here ... since you're comparing/contrasting all the same type of thing.
 * Yes, done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "...their loss is that they may contain musical links..." reads odd. Suggest "...their loss is that they might have shown musical links..."
 * That's better. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Link for Libretto and explanation on first usage?
 * Done (in lead)

L'Arianna:
 * "...and set the ballet Ballo delle ingrate." Huh?
 * Improved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Linkie "soprano"?
 * Done Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't "...could hold an audience of several thousands." be "could hold an audience of several thousand."?
 * Either is used in BritEng. The singular form would normally be followed by a specific noun, e.g. "persons". Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I gather the libretto survives?
 * Yes. I've added a note to this effect. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Le nozze:
 * "maestro della musica" is ... what?
 * Alternative title to "maestro di capella", but I should stick to the one title. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Thus, late in 1616 Striggio asked him to set Scipione Agnelli's libretto Le nozze di Tetide, as part of the celebrations..." I don't get the "set" bit here.
 * set to music" - fixed here and elsewhere Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Andromeda:
 * A "ballo" is what? Yeah, there's a link, but you can lose readers that way.
 * Explanation added. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "still with 400 lines of the Andromeda libretto to set" ... we need to define this jargon of "set" somewhere - I sorta get the gist of it, but it's jargony and should be explained on first usage so you don't confuse non-specialists. Again ... "librettos were often the subject of numerous settings by " is going to be opaque to non-specialists.
 * See note above. I think the meaning of "setting" in this context is now clear. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Two abortive:
 * "about a women who feigns madness" is this "a woman" or "about women"?
 * Woman (typo)

La finta:
 * "appreciation of the composer's innovatory style" awkward - more usual would be "appreciation of the composer's innovative style"
 * Yes


 * "...theme in commedia dell'arte which..." "commedia dell'arte" is what?
 * I've made this "the commedia dell'arte tradition", but the link will have to do for any detailed explanation which cannot be achieved in a few words. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Linkie "Italian theatre"?
 * What link did you have in mind?
 * I was hoping for something specifically Italian in History of theatre but no such luck... that's the general idea I had... but we seem to be lacking any overview history of Italian theatre article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Linkie "Paulo Sacrati"?
 * It's a redlink; I've never heard of him otherwise so I wonder about his notability?

Armida:
 * Linkie "Girolamo Mocenigo"?
 * Even less notable than Sacrati, I'd say. Very much doubt he's worth a redlink, honestly

Proserpina:
 * Quickie explanation for canzonetta?
 * It's a song, and easier to say so in English so I've done that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Quickie explanation for "balli"?
 * Its the plural of "ballo" which is already explained and linked.


 * Okay, so it was added to a repetroire after his death but when did it fall out of the repetoire?
 * No information in any sources on that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Le Nozze:
 * Linkie for "Michelangelo Torcigliani"?
 * I think about this. In my view redlinks should be used when there is a possible chance that an article will be written on the subject. I know that some editors like to use them whenever possible, but when overused they can confuse the uninformed reader and can be unsightly. But as I say, I'll give it more thought. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "He acknowledges numerous departures from the original, including the introduction of a comic character, "Numanus", to match that of the popular "Iro" in Ulisse: "I knew the dispositions of many theatregoers"." Disjointed - I diddn't see the connection between the quote and the first part until I reread the sentence - suggest rewording.
 * Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, the article just ... ends. Nothing to tie all this together and stuff?
 * I'm working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 19:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Laser brain

It's very good. As you know, I find the concept of the lost work quite fascinating—even more tantalizing is the possibility that these scores will emerge from some dank library archive in the future. Thanks for the great read.

General:
 * Spotted some comma inconsistency in sentences that begin with "In [date]" or "On [date]" phrases.
 * I use a comma after a year or date only if a subclause follows. Thus: "In 1644, the year following Monteverdi's death,..." etc, as against "On 20 June Monteverdi informed..." etc. I believe I've been consistent in following this principle, but please point out any instance where I haven't.

Background:
 * "Monteverdi's long creative life is largely contained in two phases" Same comment as Tim riley, really. Maybe "Monteverdi's long creative life comprises largely two phases"? Not sure...
 * This phrasing has subsequently been replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "Before then, and even after, in Italy operatic works were typically termed favola in musica" The "and even after" lost me here—you've just written that the term opera was not used before 1634, implying that it was used after. Do you mean that after 1634, Italian operatic works were sometimes called opera and sometimes called favola in musica, etc?
 * Again, this wording has been superseded. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "A significant aspect of their loss is that they may contain musical links between the composer's early Mantuan court operas and the public operas he wrote in Venice towards the end of his life." I think you need more clarity here. I'm assuming what you're stating is that the opportunity to study the potential links has been lost.
 * I have strengthened the comment by adding a quotation from Carter which I think covers your point. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For Mantua:
 * "The libretto for L'Arianna was by Rinuccini, whose literary skills had earlier impressed Duke Vincenzo I of Mantua after a performance of Euridice." Wouldn't Rinuccini's literary skills have impressed the duke during the performance?
 * Not sure about this - maybe he was concentrating on the music and/or spectatcle during the performance? Probably best left. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

For Venice:
 * Ninth Book of Madrigals—what is it? Stylize as appropriate. A brief explanation would be nice.
 * Explanation and footnote added. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you for these comments which were most helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ruhrfisch comments
 * I just read this in one sitting - very nicely done. I have a few quibbles, but think it is ready for FAC already (ping me).
 * In For Mantua, even though I have read the article on L'Orfeo, I somehow expected a bit more on it here than a passing mention in the second sentence of the L'Arianna section and one mention by name in the Background.
 * When I read this, I just assumed there would be some sort of follow-up sentence (when it was next performed, or even that no trace of it remains) ''In 1644, the year following Monteverdi's death, Proserpina rapita was added to the repertory of Venice's Teatro San Moisè.[92]
 * Redlich, the source, give no performance details, and no other source I've seen even mentions this fact. Carter refers to a second edition of the libretto being published in Venice in 1644 which is indicative of some relevant action there. I have extended the sentence to incoporate these facts.
 * Much better now -thanks Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * General comment - I know that it says in the lead which were the four operas that were actually written and performed, but perhaps it could be made clearer in the beginning of each section if this is the case. So for example the first sentence of L'Arianna begins with L'arianna was composed for the Mantua court as part of the festivities for the wedding of the heir to the duchy, Francesco Gonzaga, to Margherita of Savoy, in May 1608. which makes it clear it was actually composed and performed. His last two Mantuan projects are under the header "Two abortive projects (1627–28)", so it is clear from the start that they came to nought. However the sections on Le nozze di Tetide and Andromeda both begin ambiguously, and to be honest, I was a little unclear at first if Andromeda had been performed or not (I went back and re-read the sentence ''The libretto's frontispiece confirms that the work was performed during Mantua's Carnival, 1–3 March 1620.[50] - perhaps if "Andromeda" was used instead of "the work"?).
 * I am not sure if it would help to have a sentence or two at the start of the For Mantua and For Venice sections giving an overview of each? So "For Mantua" could have a sentence that said Monteverdi worked on six operas for Mantua, only the first of which, L'Orfeo survives with music. Perhaps give a sentence or two on L'Orfeo next, then it could go on to say that of the remaining six, only the second (L'Arianna) and fourth (Andromeda) were actually completed and performed.
 * The "For Venice" section could start with something similar, though these were clearer to me (both lost Venetian works were composed and performed). So perhaps something like Monteverdi composed four operas for performances in Venice, half of which survive with their music. His first Venetian work ... It is your call, but this may be clearer for the average reader.


 * Thank you very much for these excellent suggestions, to which I shall apply myself. I wonder if I could ask you, as a further favour, to check whether you see any problems in relation to image licencing, or with the soundfile? The soundfile was on the L'Arianna article on which I am working independently, but I haven't really checked it out (Jappalang used to do these things) Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The painting images are all old enough to be out of copyright and thus photos of them are free. The photo of the palace is free too. The sound file is free as far as I can tell - I added the web page of the uploader (who is no longer active here). He recorded and sang it himself, so that seems fine. The only possible question is which version of the song did he record - assuming it is the one from the Madrigals book, all should be fine. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the brief introductions at the start of each section are fine and all of my concerns above have been addressed. While re-reading the start of the article, I noticed a stray quotations mark in ''...but of their music, only the famous lament",... that needs to be paired up or removed. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Folantin comments

Nice work. "Paolo Sacrati" should be Francesco Sacrati, a popular opera composer of the era who may have had a hand in M.'s Incoronazione di Poppea. I created a stubby bio of him years ago, which could be expanded one day. --Folantin (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thnks for spotting my error. I had Sacrati correctly named in L'incoronazione, don't know why I called him Paolo here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * "None of Monteverdi's music for Andromeda has survived." I'm pretty positive "Andromeda" needs italicising here, because presumably you mean the whole opera, not just the music for the heroine.--Folantin (talk) 17:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Gerda Arendt comments (with only little time at the moment)
 * Lead: I would like to know all seven titles in the lead, rather soon, to know what we talking about, for example at the end of the first par.
 * Still there: I bet there is a better link to the court of Mantua than the present day city (compare Selva morale e spirituale) like Gonzaga mentioned later.
 * Arianna, Armida: It is clear only afterwards where the plot ends.
 * Another enjoyable interesting article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "fully preserved" - can we really say so about Ulisse and Poppea, looking at the debates about what in the copies is by Monteverdi? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gerda, for these helpful comments. I have adopted your suggestions, except for the first. Having tried this at an earlier stage in the drafting, I found that the proliferation of names led to confusion as to what was lost and what wasn't, what was finished and what wasn't, etc. So I'm leaving the first paragraph as it is, though all seven titles are now listed in the lead. Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Wehwalt comments (first part as yet)


 * Lede
 * Are you sure on the bolding? Please consult WP:BOLDTITLE is you have not yet done so.
 * The first two sentences contain an excessive number of commas, which is not helping to draw the reader in.
 * "only three of which—" This is a very odd place to break off for the dash.
 * "There is irrefutable evidence " Can you not bind this paragraph together by relating the papers mentioned in the previous sentence to this?
 * Background
 * The sentences about what occurred during Monteverdi's musical career can probably be made to carry more impact if you are so inclined, but it may be best to pull your punches at this early stage.
 * "for which both Peri and Giulio Caccini provided musically settings independently." The reader may be confused by this statement.  Would it be wise to say that the work was performed to these settings, and in I assume 1600?
 * I would reserve any mention of Monteverdi and L'Orfeo until the start of the following paragraphs from the one it presently appears in. This way, you move from the general to the specific with no need to move back.
 * If you are going to italicise intermezzo, I would give consideration to doing the same to entr'acte. Just so the reader reads with an easy mind.
 * "alongside the development of opera" perhaps "during Monteverdi's musical career; he often ..." or similar?
 * " to confusion as to the correct classification of some works." perhaps, "to debate about how to categorise some works".
 * Perhaps a few well-chosen words on Monteverdi's 1624 work which show how it resembled and yet was different from modern opera would be wise.
 * For Mantua
 * "In all, " omit.
 * " the service of the Gonzagas and was ensconced " Perhaps a reminder of the date he left the service of the Gonzagas.
 * "nearly 20 years later, in a letter to the duke's secretary" could you find a graceful way of conveying to the reader that the duke was then dead?
 * "After a Prologue" On balance, I think prologue should be lower case.
 * Lamento caption: I would state when the piece was recorded.
 * "Rinuccini's libretto was extended during the rehearsals, after complaints to the duke " If it is known who made the complaints, I would say so. Is it possible to turn the first phrase to the active voice, or is the extender not necessarily Rinuccini?
 * "Andreini's renowned acting and vocal abilities." Perhaps the "renowned" can be moved to the first mention of Andreini? I think it would convey to the reader that they didn't just grab the first lady who could sing who came along in all likelihood.
 * "employed" Perhaps it is overcute, but would you consider "deployed"?
 * "the Mantuan court's official reporter for the occasion" I'm not sure what this means.  Perhaps a rephrase is worth considering?
 * If the Venice performance was the last, you should say so. If it is not known if it was the last, you should say so instead.
 * "was familiar to the Mantuan court" If what follows is the evidence of this, it really isn't enough; it might only be familiar to whoever screened the candidates assuming he had a good memory and was still alive.  Life seemed rather chancy then.  Far safer to be at the Mint!
 * "intermedi" a link to its singular form would be good, I think.
 * "the duke had a sudden change of heart " I would omit "sudden".  It does not matter if the duke agonized over it or did it on a whim, the point is he withdrew the commission.
 * "still with 400 lines" There's a definite feeling that an "only" is intended before the 400.  You may as well say it, then.
 * "discovery" "rediscovery"?
 * "current employers" then-employers?
 * "In reply, Monteverdi offered three options: " Perhaps this can be split?
 * "Mindful of Mantua's" I think you will need a "Tomlinson believes that ..." or "He believes that ..." or similar.
 * "There are obvious structural similarities" I think this is too abrupt a start to the analysis.


 * Obviously an epic work, and very well done. More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for such painstaking reviewing. I have dealt with your points in the letter or spirit of your suggestions, except for:
 * Lead bolding: the link in the bolded characters was obviously wrong, but I think simple bolding of the name is permissible; I can't see where in WP:BOLDTITLE it is forbidden
 * "A few well chosen words" where you suggest them would I think veer off-topic, but such words do appear, in a better context, in the Armida section
 * There is no information available about performances of L'Arianna after the 1640 Venice revival
 * "still with 400" was my intended sense, i.e. he still had much music to write when he suggested the project be given up
 * "then-employers" is not BritEng idiom. I've made it "Venetian employers".

I'll be ready for the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * For Venice
 * " Only Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria and L'incoronazione di Poppea survive, although the two lost Venice operas were both completed, and were performed within Monteverdi's lifetime." I would reverse this and say "All were performed in Monteverdi's lifetime, but only ..."  I think saying they were performed carries the implication that they were completed.  I understand, though if you want the word in there for stress
 * "Girolamo Mocenigo" Perhaps describe him for those who come directly to this section as "Monteverdi's wealthy Venetian patron"?
 * I must say, that is quite a plot for a wedding celebration! I personally would find it put me off my cake.
 * " dances were choreographed " I am rather dubious about using this very 20th century term.  Arranged?
 * I would shorten the quote. The reader is waiting too long to find out what the special effects were.
 * "Come dolce oggi l'auretta" Greek to me. I would translate.
 * " Ellen Rosand" Perhaps state her profession
 * "a similar " consider "an analogous"
 * "wounds a deer and kills a Latino shepherd, Elminio," Lest it be thought Monteverdi valued the dear more highly, perhaps (if true) "first wounds a deer, and then kills ..." Also must you use "Latino"?  Can he not be "Latin"
 * "the trio's" hm.  Mortal or divine?
 * "Torcigliani's preface refers to "the sweetness .."" This preface was performed onstage? I gather that it was.  He praised himself in the verses?  Set to music?  Perhaps a little clarity is called for.
 * Consequences
 * Is it possible to mention that there are no performances as yet of the remusicked work?

That's all I have. Well done as usual.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have dealt with the minor points per your comments except:-
 * I don't yet have a translation for the Italian "Come dolce oggi l'auretta". This can always be added later
 * Rosand: having said "In her analysis of Monteverdi's late works..." I thought it unnecessary to add a further description, e.g. "musicologist", "historian" etc. People will I think gather that Ellen Rosand is an authority. This requirement to identify people with a specific label, even when the context speaks for itself, is probably as tiresome for readers as it is for writers.
 * I went ahead and created a brief article on Rosand. If anyone is really curious they can now just click on the wikilink to her article.4meter4 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Torcigliani's preface was not part of the libretto and was not set to music. I think this is now clear.
 * Goehr's "remusicked" version of Arianna was performed at the ROH in September 1995. I trust this is also clear.

Thanks for all these comments. I will probably wait for FAC to shift a bit before nominating. Brianboulton (talk) 11:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)