Talk:Antonio Vivaldi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Bach sentence correction[edit]

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.


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. --NeilN talkcontribs 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. --NeilN talkcontribs 18:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Style and influence requires revision[edit]

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!


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

Do you have links to reliable sources we could use to back up the statement? --NeilN talkcontribs 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 [1] and this [2] (Music Encyclopedia section) to write something? --NeilN talkcontribs 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. --Kleinzach 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 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

No box?[edit]

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???


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

In this article? Can't spot what you're referring to. --NeilN talkcontribs 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. (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I've added the navbox (navigation box). --NeilN talkcontribs 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. --NeilN talkcontribs 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[edit]

This article is about to be edited as part of an educational assignment by Union University (of Jackson, Tennessee). This is being discussed here. --Kleinzach 05:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In fact, it's already happened, see here. --Kleinzach 13:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


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. --Kleinzach 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nisi Dominus[edit]

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: 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 (talkcontribs) 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..." ( Kamchatka777 (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect link[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Change music? :-/[edit]

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 (talk) 00:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Upsidedahead, 3 July 2011[edit]

{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}


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

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#Posthumous reputation 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


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

Venetian or Italian?[edit]

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 (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 (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.-- (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[edit]

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 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)

Vivaldi catalogs[edit]

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. [3] and [4] for further info. Rachel 14:00 GMT 12 March 2013 -- (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Second perhaps only to Johann Sebastian Bach" Really?[edit]

"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 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,, 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)


The recent change by 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[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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