Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/L'incoronazione di Poppea/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L'incoronazione di Poppea

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.

This opera article had been expanded recently, from Start-class to a potential FAC. On the way it has benefitted from helpful comments and contributions from members of the Opera Project, for which I am most grateful. The article needs a full review of its content, sourcing, images etc. At present it lacks a sound file, but I am hoping we will be able to add at least a Non-free sample of the music under fair use. Thanks, Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Awadewit

I'm starting a peer review now - I hope to have it completed in the next few days. Awadewit (talk) 03:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • two surviving scores from the 1650s (a second was discovered in 1930) - This is slightly confusing, as it suggests that the first was always known. Is this detail really necessary in the lead? If so, the fact that both copies were discovered later should be made clearer.
    The parenthetical detail should have been deleted when I streamlined the lead. This has now been done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a departure from traditional literary morality it is the adulterous liaison of Poppea and Nerone which triumphs - I'm not sure that "triumphs" is the right word here.
    How about: "which is celebrated"?
    I like that better. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • Written when the genre of opera was still in its relative infancy - Do we need "relative"?
    I think so. Opera was 40 to 50 years old when L'incoronazione was written, so I think "infancy" needs qualifying.
    Ok. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the article uses "17th century" and sometimes "seventeenth century" - this should be standardized according to WP:MOSNUM.
    I have done this
  • Conductor Nikolaus Harnoncourt, a leading Monteverdi interpreter, refers to the practice of the time whereby, to meet differing local performance conditions, the composer would leave as much as possible of a score open. Another convention made it unnecessary to write down detail that performers would take for granted." - Missing open quotation mark
    Fixed - quotes not necessary as this is paraphrase. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more "modern" style of metric notation which is used in some passages of the L'incoronazione scores suggests the work of younger composers. - Why is modern in quotation marks? It looks like scare quotes to me.
    Rephrased and clarified. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of "Early performances" could be interwoven more seamlessly into the article. It doesn't clearly relate to the opera at this point.
    This has been done, also theatre details reduced. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malipiero's edition was the basis of staged performances in Paris (1937) and Venice (1949). - Awkwardly worded
    TWeaked
  • Should there be redlinks in the article for various opera companies and pieces of music that could have their own articles?
    Various redlinks introduced. I'm doing a short article on the Accademia degli Incognito so that will soon turn blue, and I will try and do one on Ellen Rosand but that may take time. Please feel free to wikilink anything else you think is potentially an article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written when the genre of opera was still in its early stages - Sounds just the teensiest bit awkward.
    Reworded
  • Ringer calls the opera "Monteverdi's last and arguably greatest work,[58] a unified masterpiece of "unprecedented depth and individuality". - Ending quotation mark missing
    Fixed
  • I don't see all that many books in the references - why is that? What about the following sources (these are just a few of the ones I found in about 5 minutes - I can send you the full citations for them, if you wish:
  • Mark Ringer's essay "Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria -- "Nothing human is alien to me" : L'incoronazione di Poppea" in Opera's first master : the musical dramas of Claudio Monteverdi
  • Gary Tomlinson's essay "Hamlet and Poppea -- Learning to curse at sixty-seven" in Music and historical critique : selected essays
  • Jürgen Schläder's essay "Offene und verdeckte Wahrheiten : zu Monteverdis Oper L'incoronazione di Poppea" in "Der moderne Komponist baut auf der Wahrheit" : Opern des Barock von Monteverdi bis Mozart

This is the point I'm most concerned about - I was surprised to see so many articles and books on this opera in particular turn up so quickly in my library search that had not been used in this article (I think I found about 10). Perhaps there is a very good reason for that, however.

I hope these comments are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are helpful and I am working on them. Thank you. Do you have anything to add re images? The source link for the Lucan image is now repaired, by the way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the images look fine. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see responses to individual points above. On sources, three kinds of source are used: books, articles and websites, the last being mainly reviews of performances/recordings from magazines and newspapers. Rosand, Carter and Ringer are three of the leading Monteverdi scholars currently writing in English, and their recent books are widely used in the article. So far as Poppea is concerned these books outweigh others in terms of the attention they give to this opera, particularly Carter and Ringer. There are of course other books, Denis Arnold's for example, which I have in front of me now. Arnold, the great Monteverdi expert of 20 or more years ago, has to some extent been superseded by such as Carter; in any event his two main Monteverdi books don't say a lot about Poppea. His best writing (in my view) on that opera was in his long article in the 1980 New Grove, which I have used.
  • There are of course other books. Earlier versions of this article cited Paolo Fabbri's 2007 biography Monteverdi (CUP), and Francesco Bianconi's 1987 Music in the seventeenth century (CUP). Neither book has much text specific to Poppea, and their ground is pretty well covered in the main sources, so they disappeared from the article. It would be easy enough to restore them, and cite stuff to them, but unless there was a new and important insight revealed, I see little point in doing this.
  • There are hundreds of potential article sources. Many of them are distilled in the Carter, Rosand and Ringer books. I have also used and cited articles by Rosand, Carter, Arnold, Clifford Bartlett and Nikolaus Harnoncourt, among others. As to the three essays you suggest, Ringer's "Nothing Human is Alien to Me" is pages 213–308 of his book Opera's First Master and is well cited in the article. I don't know the Tomlinson essay you mention, though I have looked generally at his work. Finally, with plenty of English language sources to choose from, it seems unnecessary to choose a German one. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One reason I cited the German essay is because there tend to be distinct national traditions is musicology, so I was wondering if the German article would have a different perspective than the English material (I know, for example, that there are distinct national interpretations of Liszt). I just wanted to raise this issue. In general, your reasoning sounds good here. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tim riley
  • General
    • Capitalisation – a familiar bleat from me about consistency. The carnival is variously capitalised and not capitalised within the article; I'd recommend not. You have the "Glyndebourne festival" (a proper noun, surely) but the "Imperial Palace" (cap not needed.) My Latin dictionary doesn't put a cap on "lictor". Do Consuls and Tribunes need capitalising?
    • Critics and musicologists – e.g. Carter – suddenly appear in the text as if they are familiar names: some context would help at first mention, e.g. "The musicologist Tim Carter"… (not, for preference, the journalese "Musicologist Tim Carter", omitting the definite article – all right for The Sun but not for a serious encyclopaedia article.) Rosand – as for Carter, though she is accorded a first name a few paragraphs later.
  • I'd go a step further and not mention the names of those critics and musicologists who are not bluelinked, unless the person is an important expert in the field whose name adds something to the content of their reviews. You can just name them in the footnote. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • Last sentence of first paragraph. Can one conscientiously describe the work as part of the "operatic mainstream"? I don't recall its ever being done at Covent Garden, for instance (though I am open to correction on this point), and the ENO has had only two productions of it in the last forty years.
  • Historical context
    • The last para of this section appears to consist entirely of speculation. If you think the speculation is worth including I feel it might bear more conviction if you briefly set out the reasons given by Carter, Ringer et al for so speculating.
  • Composition
    • Rosand confesses might never be wholly resolved – "confesses" is an odd word, here, almost implying guilt – perhaps "acknowledges" is more neutral.
    • music by other composers, has – the comma is an intrusion, surely?
    • recently-discovered score of Francesco Sacrati's previously lost opera – as it's recently-discovered, do you also need to describe it as previously lost?
  • Morality
    • Yet despite the lack of a moral compass in virtually all the main characters, critic Edward B. Savage asserts that Busenello's plot is itself essentially moral… – as drafted, this reads like POV, i.e. despite the evidence, Savage says something debatable. Is it correct to say (more neutrally) "the critic Edward B. Savage asserts that despite the lack of a moral compass in virtually all the main characters, Busenello's plot is itself essentially moral…"?
    • the context of their own times terms – "times" or "terms", I imagine
  • Early performances
    • the première of Monteverdi's lost opera Le Nozze d'Enea in Lavinia – I see what you mean, but it reads rather oddly. Premiering a lost opera can't be easy. Tricky to reword unambiguously, I admit. I'd be tempted to lose the word "lost" altogether.
  • Rediscovery
    • parts of the work." d'Indy's edition – I think d'Indy gets a capital D when he begins a sentence.
    • the Lincoln Centre – an Anglicisation? Oughtn't it to be "Center" as a proper noun?
  • Recent revivals
    • arising from Monteverdi having left – gerund needed here, i.e. "Monteverdi's having left"
    • Evening Standard critic – the poor old Evening Standard deserves a blue link
    • with Leppard's heavy orchestration – "heavy" is a bit judgmental: perhaps "large-scale"?
    • Teatro Real – another deserving candidate for a blue link
  • Music
    • still in its relative infancy – can one be a relative infant? I'd be inclined to lose the adjective.
    • Arnold – another sudden appearance of a pundit who could do with a tiny bit of introduction or context.

A most satisfying article throughout (though I was sad to learn that the only number in the whole show that I – and, I suspect, most operagoers – can remember, viz "Pur ti miro", may not be by Monteverdi.) The balance of sections seems to me just right: there are no sections that cry out for expansion or for pruning. The whole article is easy to read and to understand. It will certainly grace the front page. I've made what seem to me to be straightforward corrections of ten typos, but please check that you're happy with them. – Tim riley (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this review and for the helpful comments. I have adjusted all of them in accordance with your suggestions. Most importantly, you reminded me of something that I had forgotten - the weakness of the third paragraph in the Context section. I have rewritten it, removing the speculation and saying only what is specifically covered by the sources. One other thing: within the next day a short "Recording history" will be added to the article and you may want to look at that. Brianboulton (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was and I have. The article gets even better. Bravissimo! - Tim riley (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jonyungk
  • Lead
    • In the final paragraph, you write that "the work is universally accepted as part of the Monteverdi operatic canon as his last and perhaps his greatest work." Maybe I missed it, but this point does not seem to be addressed in the body of the article. The closest mention is a (negative) comment by Romain Rolland after the d'Indy edition was first performed.
    • In the same paragraph, you mention that the opera "helped to inaugurate a new era in the history of theatrical music, and established Monteverdi as the leading musical dramatist of his time." I was hoping to read more about how this was so, especially considering there is "no record of the opera's initial public reception", but did not see anything else pertaining to this comment in the body of the article. The closest the article comes is in addressing, in the "Music" section, how the opera "broke new ground in matching music to stage action". That information in itself is very well presented but does not address how it established Monteverdi nor how other composers might have followed in Monteverdi's footsteps.
I have modified the comments in the lead, and have added a little text to the final paragraph of the Music section to support them. There is also Harnoncourt's comments, at the end of the Music section, about the lasting influence of the work. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical context
    • The final paragraph is slightly confusing. Monteverdi might have become acquainted with Busenello through a mutual associate and produced one of Monteverdi's operas together. Then we read that "the details of their professional relationship are unknown; there is no record of any meeting between Monteverdi and Busenello, or any evidence of direct collaboration". How did they work together to produce an opera if they did not collaborate somehow? Maybe including the word "otherwise" before "unknown" might help.
This paragraph has been substantially written, with the speculative elements removed. See similar comments to yours from Tim Riley, above. The fact is, we don't know anything of the details of how Monteverdi and Busenello worked together, because nothing is recorded. However, Ringer's comment about the shared Gonzaga experience looks interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writing history
    • In the "Libretto" section, we read, "Drusilla, despite her complicity in the attempted murder of Poppea, becomes an example of steadfastness and constancy that impresses even Nerone, whereas the real-life Drusilla, from an earlier Roman generation, was the daughter of Agrippina the Elder and the incestuous sister of the emperor Caligula.[14]" How is this a contradiction of actual events? Other readers may be remiss on their Roman history, even with the inclusion of the word "incestuous", so perhaps a few words to explain would help.
I have taken out the above sentence re Drusilla. On reflection, there is no evidence that Busenello meant us to identify his Drusilla with the historical sister of Caligula, who lived 25 years earlier anyway. I have replaced this with a brief sentence about Lucano. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've mentioned this before, so please bear with me. It seems that the "Morality" part of this section refers more to the historical context of the libretto and how it would have been received by its listeners and readers than to its actual composition. Would "Morality" be better served in "Historical context", or perhaps as a section of its own?
The "Historical Context" section deals with the general background to the writing of the opera. The morality issue is a specific discussion which arises from a reading of Busenello's libretto. I don't personally think this single issue warrants a section to itself, and believe the matter is best placed where it is, but if other reviewers agree with you, I'll go with the consensus. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an altogether excellent article, even within the high level of your work in general, and I agree with you that it deserves FA status. Here's wishing it the best. Jonyungk (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and kind words. Just to clarify: it's not for me to say that the article "deserves" FA status. My hope is that after the peer review it can realistically aspire to that, but let us wait and see. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would like to thank the above reviewers for their helpful comments. Further comments and suggestions are of course welcome. I shall be away unti Friday 20 November and will be happy to respond to any outstanding points then. Brianboulton (talk) 09:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: This looks very good to me, and as Brian knows I am not an opera expert. Sorry for the delay in this review - enjoy your time away. Here are some nitpicky suggestions for improvement.

  • This sentence seems a bit awkward and I have had to reread it each time: The opera was revived in Naples in 1651, but was then neglected until, after the rediscovery of its score in 1888, it became a subject of scholarly attention in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. perhaps something like The opera was revived in Naples in 1651, but was then neglected until the rediscovery of its score in 1888, after which it became a subject of scholarly attention in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. or even ...but was neglected until the rediscovery of its score in 1888. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries it became a subject of scholarly attention. would read better?
    • Perhaps even better would be to get shot of the subclause altogether (this is a summary lead, after all). Thus:- "The opera was revived in Naples in 1651, but was then neglected until it became the subject of scholarly attention in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."
  • Having read the comments above, would a more specific time period be clearer than "relative infancy"? Perhaps something like "Written when the opera genre was only a few decades old, the music for L'incoronazione di Poppea has been praised for its originality...?
    • Others have commented on the vagueness of "relative infancy"; I have defended the term but your suggestion is clearer, so I'll go for it.
  • There is only one wikilink in the second paragraph of the lead and none in the third paragraph - not sure what else to link though (there is no article I can find on "traditional literary morality")
    • I really can't see any other opportunities for wikilinks without contriving them.
  • Should the article be consistent on whether Italian titles and names are translated into English or not? For example the title is translated and Nerone is helpfully translated as Nero, as is the Return of Ulysses, but operas are not always translated. Would it make sense to say that L'Orfeo relates the myth of Orpheus and L'Arianna the myth of Ariadne and Didone is about Dido (and not the pop singer)? I also have to confess I am not sure what Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda is about.
    • I have added translations and/or explanations as appropriate. As far as Didone is concerned I'm relying on the link to demonstrate what this opera is about, rather than overcomplicate things with extra wording.
  • This seems ultra-picky, but will the average reader realize that "Teatro Santi Giovanni e Paulo" in the lead is the same as "Teatro SS Giovanni e Paulo"? Would it also help to say it is the Theater of Saints John and Paul? The name appears four times in the article and the SS form is used only once.
    • Good point about SS; name needs to be consistent, so I've altered the SS form. I think translating the theatre's name to English is a bit cumbersome and unnecessary, though. In general we accept Italian names of theatres, e.g. La Scala, La Fenice, etc, and I certainly didn't use translations in Agrippina
  • "produced" seems an odd word choice in Musicologist Alan Curtis believes the collaboration involved only a single accomplice, and produced his 1989 edition of L'incoronazione under the joint authorship of Monteverdi and Sacrati.[19] If it is standard music termminology, fine. But if not, would Musicologist Alan Curtis believes the collaboration involved only a single accomplice, and his 1989 edition of L'incoronazione showed it as being produced under the joint authorship of Monteverdi and Sacrati.[19] (not great, but you get the idea)
    • I meant "produced" in the sense of "published" and have now replaced the word
  • This seems not to follow WP:MOSQUOTE Rosand has suggested that Venetian audiences would have understood the Poppea story in the context of their own times as a moral lesson demonstrating the superiority of Venice, and that "such immorality was only possible in a decaying society, not a civilized nation."[23] (should it end ...not a civilized nation".[23] ?
    • The full quote is: "There is some indication that Poppea could have been understood by its contemporaries as a moral lesson implying the superiority of Venice over Rome, and suggesting that such immorality was only possible in a decaying society, not a civilized nation." So the grammar is dodgy in the original. I've put in a bracketed insert, thus: "...not [in] a civilized nation."
      • That is clearer, thanks. My original concern was that the placement of the period (full stop) did not seem to meet the logical punctuation rule (what is quoted is not a full sentence, so the period should be outside the quotation mark). SandyGeorgia is very good at finding these (and I am not as sure of myself in this area), so it is probably OK to leave it as is and see if it is commented on in FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times is linked twice in two sections (Rediscovery and Recent revivals)
    • Fixed.
  • Should the artist John William Waterhouse be added to the caption of the Nerone painting?
    • Done
  • The abbrevaition ENO needs to be placed after its first full appearance, so "English National Opera (ENO)"
    • Done
  • Each of the paragraphs in the Recording history section seems to need more references - each ends with a sentence or two that has no source.
    • More citations added.
  • Everything else seems fine and these are minor points - please let me know when this is at FAC. This is entirely speculation / OR on my part, but I know in Germany Carnival (Fasching) is often associated with a "world turned upside down" reversal of expected roles and mores. Is it possible that the fact that this opera which praises adultery etc. and premiered in the Carnival season somehow also reflects that tradition? Just wondering...

Hope this helps. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/L%27incoronazione_di_Poppea/archive1&oldid=1078797561"