From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article L'Arianna is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 24, 2015.
October 11, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
WikiProject Opera (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.

Pronouncing: Tèseo or Tesèo?[edit]

Regarding "O Teseo, o teseo....": I think the name is pronounced Tesèo (like Orfèo, Egèo, etc.)... right? The Italian wiki says "Tèseo", but that does not mean much :-) . Please verify and add a good link to reliable source. (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can hear how it's pronounced on recordings. The stress is on the first syllable (per the Italian version). --Folantin (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkpage review, March 2013[edit]

(These ecomments are copied from my personal talkpage and will be dealt with here Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC))

Comments from Dictioneer

You don't need me to tell you that, overall, this article is dauntingly good. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to be bold: my suggestions will fall along the lines of changing the opening to better grab the interest of the general reader, plus possible minor corrections and additions.

  • Opening para – The SV 297 tag is distracting to the general reader, especially in the 'grab' sentence for a FA. Move into the next section, perhaps?
  • Bigger 'grab' suggestion: I would rephrase the opening sentence to include the fact that it is a “lost opera” and a couple of interest-grabbing factoids. Something like: one of Monteverdi's lost operas, was the inaugural work for the Teatro San Moisè in Venice, and was said by the author to have “brought me almost to death's door.” The only surviving portion, “Lamento d'Arianna,” is considered one of the most influential works of the early 17th century. The second opera written by the Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643), it was first performed on 28 May 1608, … probably too wordy, but hopefully you see what I'm trying to achieve.
  • I would hyperlink to the story of the abandonment on Naxos, … It recounts Ariadne's abandonment by Theseus on Naxos …
  • Opening, 2nd para – I would use inventive instead of innovatory (probably an American v. British thing) to avoid intimidating the general reader with unfamiliar vocabulary.
  • Revival: Venice 1639-40 – the image is bot-flagged to move to Wikimedia commons, and I would think that's where it belongs. I'm also tempted to move it to the top of this article, replacing Monteverid's portrait, but I suspect that probably violates a standard/template for the organization of this type of article.
  • External Links – the link says Lamento d'Arianna but it points to Lasciatemi_morire_(Claudio_Monteverdi) which I suspect is a simple error to fix.

That's what I've got. I hope my suggestions are helpful, and I hope that someday I'll produce an article to a similar standard. Dictioneer (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your suggestions and kind words. Over the next week or so I will look to implementation of your points. You are right that the substitution of the Monteverdi portrait would breach an accepted convention for these articles. The same is true of the positioning of the SV reference. I feel inclined to respect these conventions, but will be happy to embrace the other changes. Brianboulton (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley

A few comments from me:

  • Lead
    • Blue links for Ariadne and Theseus?
    • "become popular as a concert piece outside the context of the opera" – are the last six words necessary? Not sure, but I mention it for your consideration
  • Historical context
    • "Monteverdi was then commissioned to write" – if I correctly read this section, Monteverdi was a member of the duke's staff, in which case "commissioned" is an odd word. "Asked" or even "told" would seem more the mark.
    • "Maria de' Medici" – you have your reasons for piping Marie de' Medici as Maria de' Medici, but they are not obvious to me.
  • Libretto
    • When I review any article I always run it through a spell check. You will be pleased to learn that what you have typed as Virgil's Aeneid should, according to my computer, be Virgin's Adenoid.
    • "suggested; the musicologist" – I'd be inclined to use a colon, not a semicolon here.
  • Roles
    • "the singer's involvement is speculative, based on their presence" – singular noun with plural pronoun.
  • Synopsis
    • "as she will not be acceptable to the people of Athens as their queen" – nowhere before this has it been stated that Theseus is king of Athens. You might do it at first mention, in the lead.
  • Premiere: Mantua, 1608
    • "lasted for 2½ hours" – looks strange in figures, I feel. Perhaps two and a half hours (or two hours and a half)?
  • Revival: Venice, 1639–40
    • Image caption – if I were you I might venture a [sic] after "Ariana's", otherwise you can bet some well-meaning ninny will tell you you've misspelled the name elsewhere in your text.
  • "Lamento d'Arianna"
    • "the "Prelude and Liebestod" in Tristan und Isolde announced Wagner's discovery" – I struggle with this. You don't need me to tell you that there is no "Prelude and Liebestod" in Tristan, or anywhere else other than the Albert Hall on Wagner nights. Surely Ringer must refer to the "Prelude" and "Liebestod". This, by the way, is your first mention of Ringer, so his first name and possibly even a word or two of labelling might be useful here.
    • You are of course embarrassingly right. My only defence, m'lud, is that I thoughtlessly followed Ringer. I will be more careful in future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources
    • Need a bit of dusting. ISBN for Arnold and Fortune (here). Don't need (UK) after Cambridge for Fabbri. Denis Stevens's book should surely be just CUP – no need to drag the syndics in.

That's my lot. At your service at formal PR or FAC. – Tim riley (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Belated thanks for these comments, which I have addressed. I've been working on this article, on and off (mostly off), for about 18 months and I'll decide shortly what to do with it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The experiment[edit]

Are we right to say "Genre: Opera in eight scenes"? Isn't the genre "Opera"? Happy to be corrected from my ignorant ways! - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right, the genre is "opera". I have parenthesised the "eight scenes" - maybe better a "8 scenes"? What I don't want to do is to open another parameter. Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the parenthesis is a good idea, - perhaps recommend it to the template talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
ps. Brian, you need to tweak the Bujić ref (FN 18), which shows "pp. 75–117". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
That is the page range of the source article in Early Music History. Or am I missing the point? Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
No – ignore me: not enough coffee coursing through the system while reading. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Following transferred from User:Brianboulton's talkpage

(Comments on other issues omitted)

The only thing of use in the info-box, to my mind, is the drop-down list of Monteverdi's operas. All the other information is already given alongside in the opening paragraph except for the language, and I don't imagine anybody opening this page will suppose the work was sung in Welsh or Portuguese. In fact, if you're going to keep the box I'd prefer the display default as Show, with the option to close if the reader prefers. But I see Verdi's, Puccini's and Wagner's operas all default to Hide, so that probably isn't a runner.

I particularly dislike this box because of the necessity of shrinking that glorious Titian painting to the size of a postage stamp. Bacchus, you will have noticed, is a fast-medium right arm bowler, and at this small resolution you can't see whether his foot is behind the popping crease. I see that the boxes for the Verdi, Puccini and Wagner operas have the composer's portrait as a standard fixture. That might be preferable for Monteverdi, if you are going down that path. But I can't think why you'd want to.Tim riley (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

(watching) I tried a larger image size, feel free to experiment. I would drop the link to the other operas by the composer completely, - there is a footer navbox available. (I had missed that.) It's better to maintain only one, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
@Tim: there are no infoboxes for Wagner and Verdi operas, they were all reverted. Some talk pages have them, for example Siegfried, or "joy in the effort of awakening". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Tim: thank you for your comments. On the question of the box: I have increased the size of the Titian image, not to the extent suggested by Gerda (350pg) but to a more modest 280pg. This is bigger than it was in the pre-infobox days. I have removed the "other operas" links from the box because, as Gerda points out, they are included in the navbox at the foot of the article.
My objective in experimenting is not to demonstrate that an infobox is either necessary, or that it enhances the article. It does provide a means for getting rid of Monteverdi's grumpy old face and replacing it with something more welcoming. Other than this, largely for the reasons you outline, I'm not convinced that the box is any real improvement. But if it doesn't actually do any harm, maybe this sort of minimalist infobox is way of making peace, or at least a truce, between the warring factions? I am prepared to compromise for the sake of harmony. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Gerda: I think the enlargement you applied was somewhat over the top, and I have modified it. I have done as you suggest and dumped the links that are duplicated in the navbox. Brianboulton (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I have a tendency to overdo things ;) - After this experiment was announced on three popular talk pages I dared to mention it in the case also, - I welcome truce, after feeling thrown into a battle that I hardly understand. If it was lead or box, I would understand a fight, but to have both, for different types of readers, could be simple and peaceful. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought: Why does it say "eight scenes" in the infobox, when it doesn't mention that in the LEAD section? Wouldn't it be more descriptive to say "Baroque Opera" (I'd also mention in the LEAD that it is Baroque period, together with the number of scenes)? Also, the infobox points out the language of the opera, but that seems rather obvious from the names of the composer and librettist, and the place of the premiere. Just sayin'. Personally, I still don't see what the infobox adds. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Another thougth: would you be bold enough to try it for the fishers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm - the article looks very good to me. I miss having the picture of Monteverdi somewhere in the article. In the I*****x, I noticed that there is no link to Claudio Monteverdi which seems like it might be useful. I wonder if there is some way to note there that the music is lost. Also might be worth including that the Lament is the sole surviving and best known part of the work. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I see now that Monteverdi is linked in the I*f*b*x. I am not quite sure how to explain this, but the first time I looked at the article with the I-thingy in it, and I read that list below the Titian image, it somehow felt like something was missing (besides the stuff anyone reading the first two sentences of the lead would know, that the music is lost except for the Lamentation). Thinking about it, I believe that seeing the list below the image (Genre, Librettist, Language, Premiere) I thought "Well, who wrote the music?" Now I realize it says at the top "The Ariadne / by Claude Greenmountain" but if you don't know what that means exactly, and you only find out by reading the rest of the I-thingy, then I am not 100% sure a reader ignorant of opera would get that he composed it. So what if at the top it read something like "L'Ariadne / Opera composed by Claudia Monteverde" with links to Opera and CM? Just a thought. I am still on the fence about I-thingies, but since feedback is sought, here it is. (Only slightly tongue in cheek). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Related thoughts are contemplated here: we don't have to say that something is a symphony if it says "Symphony" on top, but for songs, oratorios and operas it would be nice. Only what to say then? The genre or how the composer may have called it? - For orchestras, we say what kind below the name. It's probably best to take this question to the template talk. Until resolved, I add "opera" here, without a link to avoid overlinking, and without "composed". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I looked, but better don't "force" opera in, - the template should handle it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for these further thoughts, they are truly appreciated. However, if the infobox can only work by being expanded to include all the information that is in the first paragraph of the lead, then it has lost its purpose and is probably best removed altogether, to avoid the kinds of possible confusion that Ruhrfisch raises. The discussion here leads me to believe that, if the infobox is added on a permanent basis, there is a danger that over time it will expand, as editors try to make it more "informative", and thus it will become a focus for argument and dissention among classical music writers. I will leave the box in place for a few more days, but my present inclination is to replace it with the Bacchus image and a slightly expanded caption, and to do as Ruhrfisch suggests by putting old Monteverdi's pic into the text somewhere, then letting the first paragraph of the lead do its job and summarise the key facts there. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I slept about it and found a way to show the genre above the image, as Ruhrfisch suggested. This is perhaps not permanent, - we may want to discuss if a separate field is needed to do this, or if the the |genre= should be shown there, - then the additions like number of acts or description by the composer need to go somewhere else or won't appear, you decide. The number of parameters is limited at present, and I see no reason to expand them or to be afraid that they will grow. I would like to watch the experiment a little longer. I believe that seeing "opera" and the composer's name at a glance justifies the infobox, in addition (!) to the lead which shows the composer only after translation of title and a catalogue number which bares no meaning to the uninitiated reader. The Lamento could be mentioned in a more detailed image caption. Please find a position for the composer's image, in any case ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Neatly done, Gerda. I'll return to this discussion at the end of the week. Brianboulton (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
On the basis of comments made here and elsewhere, I don't think there is sufficient enthusiasm among classical music editors for the versions of the infobox that have been tried here. As a final step I have reduced the box to an bare minimum "identibox". Nothing other than the names of the work and the composer are duplicated. The mythical "casual reader" will see at a glance that the article is about a Monteverdi opera; the key details are found in the first couple of lines of the text. I have incorporated Monteverdi's image into the article. This is the form in which, subject to some final adjusting, I propose to nominate the article for FAC in a couple of days. It will be interesting to see whether, in that forum, the box attracts any comment or attention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Opera by Claudio Monteverdi
Titian Bacchus and Ariadne.jpg
Titian's depiction of Bacchus's arrival on Naxos. This scene forms the climax of the opera.
Premiere 28 May 1608 (1608-05-28)
I would vote for a version between the one of yesterday and the "identibox" we have now, supplying at least a date and location. What is the meaning of the ":"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If we do that, someone will say "Why not add the librettist?", someone else: "Why not the eight scenes" – and we are back where we started. The whole idea is to limit the box to title, composer and an attractive image. At present that is the only solution I can see that might answer the concerns both of those opposed to boxes and those who think every article should have one. Let us give this uncomplicated format a chance – without additions, please. Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
If someone asks why not the librettist, you can answer. Is being afraid of such questions a good reason not to supply the information that the opera was performed (some were never), when and where? Once you say Mantua, the language can be omitted. Note that I inserted an invisible parameter for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no ned to introduce emotive language like "fear" into the discussion. You know perfectly well that the main issue with infoboxes in opera articles is the duplication of information that is readily and clearly available in the first line of the text. I am not going to go through this whole argument with you again; it should be abundantly clear why I have reduced the box to this minimal form. If during the review process a consensus emerges that the box should include further information, then it can be added. Brianboulton (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
What went wrong? It looked fine until just now, now it's just a picture with a header. I thought it was better before. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Nothing "went wrong". There is a whole history behind the use of infoboxes on opera articles that has never been resolved – this page is the merest tip of the iceberg. This is one more attempt to find a solution acceptable to the infosceptics and the infobox-philes – maybe I was unwise to attempt it, but there we are. Opinions will continue to differ, but we have to try to find a point of agreement. Brianboulton (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, let's keep trying, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Piano score[edit]

first two pages of the first edition, published by Gardano in Venice in 1623.

This continues to be a remarkably good article, so what follows is just nit-picking.

Is there any reason to have a nineteenth-century piano version of the lamento here? If so, I think it should be made clear that much of it (the realisation) is not by Monteverdi at all, which otherwise may not be immediately clear to all. If not, I suggest replacing with the original text. This isn't a particularly good copy, but it's the best I have; there may be a better one here, but HathiTrust in its infinite wisdom thinks it might still be in copyright (!) so I can't see it. It would be easy for me to make an image of the first page only if that would be preferable.

A while ago I added the bibliographic details for some of the original editions. Those have now been converted to {{cite book}} which is OK by me though I can't see any point in it. In the process, the {{long dash}}es have been removed, so "Claudio Monteverdi" is repeated a number of times, just as is not usually done in scholarly publications; it would be easy to restore them if that was desired. More worrying is that the bibliographic citations, cited with some care from RISM, have been anglicised, and are thus no longer correct. Is there some wikipedia guideline that enjoins such alterations? They are in my view unscholarly and deceptive. Do we not have some sort of duty to be accurate such things? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You are right: the first two pages of the Lamento's original text provide a much more appropriate illustration than the 1891 piano score, and I have changed to the former. I have also sized it, to provide a better image, although someone will probably change this at some point. On the use of citation templates, I generally find these helpful when preparing bibliographies and always use them – though I appreciate that opinions differ. However, it is necessary to be consistent within a single article.
On the "long dashes" question, although I am aware that scholarly publications use them I don't remember seeing them in WP bibliographies, perhaps because they are incompatible with {{cite book}}. I don't think the repetition of the Monteverdi name matters a great deal, and would prefer to keep the templates. On the final point you raise, can you clarify the issue – I am not sure what you are finding "unscholarly and deceptive". Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad the image is of use; I think it is an improvement, but then I would, wouldn't I? On citation templates, of course it's just a matter of taste; I dislike them because they are prescriptive, but that's just me. The {{long dash}} is little used here; I happen to know about it because I made it. That too is just a matter of taste. What bothers me a little more (though still not very much on an overall scale of things) is this: the Monteverdi references when I added them (based on the entries in RISM) read like this:
  • Monteverdi, Claudio (1614). Il sesto libro de madrigali a cinque voci, con un dialogo a sette, con il suo basso continuo per poterli concertare nel clavacembano [sic], et altri stromenti. Venezia: Ricciardo Amadino.
  •  ———  (1623). Lamento di Arian[n]a ... et con due lettere amorose in genere rappresentativo. Venetia: appresso Bartolomeo Magni.
  •  ———  (1641). Selva morale et spirituale. Venezia: Bartolomeo Magni.
They now read like this:
The linking seems to me an excellent thing; the minor changes to spelling and so on, less so. The nearest thing we have to a guideline on this sort of thing seems to be in WP:Spelling, "... modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references ...". Those changes seem to me a touch unscholarly, particularly as in the case of the sesto libro some rather important information not covered in the article (the basso continuo) has been eliminated; I'd like to see them reversed. As I said before, this is just nit-picking. Just in case anyone actually wants to use the long dashes, it turns out that they are in fact compatible with {{cite}}:
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think I thanked you for adding the Monteverdi references in the first place. I should have done so, and do so now; they are indeed a useful improvement.
  • On the title abbreviation: I am not convinced that the omitted words should be considered part of the actual title, rather than added description in the manner of the elaborate title pages of the day. Many books up to the 19th century tend to known by their short titles, and I don't think that anything vital to this article is contained in the missing words.
  • On the anglicising of "Venezia/Venetia": I would have thought this was acceptable in English Wikipedia. It may not be clear to some readers that the different original spellings refer to the same place, and appresso may confuse further. With the links to the original formats, I'm inclined to leave these, unless there is a really strong objection on your part.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

No thanks are due. I have the Einzeldrucke (single editions before 1800) and treatise bits of RISM, so feel free to ask any time if you need something from them. As for the rest of it, it's your call. I don't really agree, but it's a minor matter. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lead pic[edit]

I am never happy with a lead picture that has very little to do with the date of the subject matter. I like to see artistic works with the right contextuality. The Titian is a High Renaissance painting created about 100 years before the opera. It is also about Bacchus and Ariadne, but that is all that can be said.

Here are some images by contemporaries of Monteverdi, showing how the subject was perceived by others at that date. There is even a possibility that one has directly referenced the other e.g. a painter might have seen the opera. They are all very theatrical in presentation. Amandajm (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bacchus and Ariadne by contemporaries of Monteverdi
Alessandro Turchi (1578–1649) 
Tintoretto (1560-1635) 
Bolognese School, 17th century 

I have swapped the Titian for the Turchi. He was living only 20 miles from Mantua, and may well have seen a performance as this pic seems to illustrate the libretto very well. Amandajm (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! --Atlasowa (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
  • First, thanks to Amandajm for posting the gallery and thus providing a basis for choice of lead image. It would have been better if, before replacing the image, there had been some talkpage discussion of the matter. The article has just been through its FAC review and has been promoted to FA; changing an important presentational feature of the article without any notification or prior discussion looks somewhat peremptory.
Of the three images in the gallery, in my view only the Turchi is a serious candidate. The others look rather drab by comparison with the Titian or the Turchi and neither would be a visual improvement. I understand the point that the Turchi is broadly contemporary with Monteverdi (and of course Rinnucini). However, given the opera's performance history, it is a fairly remote chance that Turchi saw the opera before he did the painting. The only known performance before the Venice revival (which post-dates the painting) is the premiere at the Mantua court. He may have been there, but it is possibly more plausible that Monteverdi, or Rinnucini, would have been familiar with Titian's painting, and that they were influenced by it in creating their drama.
The Titian was originally selected as lead image for its visual appeal and dramatic impact, bearing in mind that (among other things) this image should draw casual readers into reading the text. This choice was not questioned during the various review processes—I believe I recall some positive comment. Now that a choice has been made available, I'd be interested to know what others think. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The Titian is, of course, superb, but there is a case for saying that such a magnificent and famous painting rather overshadows the text here. For my money the Tintoretto would do very well, and wouldn't distract attention from the text. The other two are rather dull. On balance I think I'd stick with the Titian, but if the Tintoretto were chosen instead I'd be happy to go with that. Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer the Titian to the others:as the opera is about the topic, rather than any of the individual images, then it's something of a moot point as to which we select, but there was a chance that Monteverdi would have seen the Titian, which cannot be said of the others. The Titian is also a rather striking and attractive image that arrests the eye momentarily, while the others are all rather brown in comparison! - SchroCat (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is the use of the Titian, specifically, to which I am objecting, regardless of the fact the it is "the most striking and attractive". If you think this is a "moot point", then you have missed the point entirely. You might as well use a Picasso, or a Greek pot.
  • The selection of pictures was here for more than two days before the change was made, and prompted no comment whatsoever.
  • The Titian is now one of the most famous works in the National Gallery, London. As such, it is very well known, much better known than any other image of Bacchus and Ariadne. Because of this (and because there is a good high res image on Commons) it has been plastered all over every article where either Bacchus or Ariadne is mention, regardless of relevance.
  • What we are doing here is creating an encyclopedia. If we are writing predominantly for ten-year-olds, then we can afford to simply use "illustrations". This painting "illustrates" the same story as the Opera, therefore it connects.
  • At an adult encyclopedic level, that isn't good enough. The illustration needs to convey solid information.
Being a person whose primary interest is the visual arts, I am very much concerned at the way that images are used and abused on Wikipedia. The choice of an image that merely illustrates (broadly) the same subject matter tells the reader very little that is useful.
The opportunity that we have is to not only use the image to grab attention but also to deepen the reader's knowledge of the subject. To do this, there needs to be a strong correlation between the image and the subject matter. In particular, there needs to be a correlation in the date, so that the image does something to convey the artistic and intellectual climate of the period. As writers about music, you would not write an article on Baroque music and illustrate it with a sound track from the Renaissance. To me, the use of the Renaissance image in this context, is just as jarring.
I see images available that would illustrate the topic of the Opera L'Arianna much better than the Titian painting. Provided you can see beyond the fact that the Titian is both beautiful and famous.
  • In the case of the Titian, the work was produced 100 years before the Opera, as one of a series for a private appartment in the residence of the Dukes of Ferrara. At the end of the 1500s, the family died out, leaving no heir. The paintings were seized by the papal legate, were rolled up (with disastrous results) and apparently didn't find its way onto a wall (in an Aldobrandini residence) until 1628. Whether it was hung in Rome or Florence, I don't know, but the chance of Rinnucini having seen it is remote.
  • In the case of the Turchi, the painting was created at about the time of the second performance, and only 20 kilometres from Mantua. It is an extremely theatrical and stagey looking work which bears very close similarity to the libretto in that it shows Venus and Cupid as part of the action. It also shows Ariadne lamenting, which is highly significant. It relates to the libretto far better than any of the other works, including the Titian.
So we have a picture that is contemporary, shows the important characters, and was created within the same region. As I have said, I would not be at all surprised if the artist knew the opera, had seen it, or had heard in detail about the performance from someone who had heard it. (in the days before digital media, people relied on story-telling, and a new Opera is the very sort of thing that would lend itself to relating in detail.
  • The Tintoretto, is of course, the work of a master painter, but does not parallel the Opera in the way that Turchi does. I think we can safely dismiss the one from Bologna.
Amandajm (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I haven't missed the point at all: I just don't necessarily agree with you! Is there a connection between Monteverdi and any of the three you selected above? No. There is as little connection between them as there is between the Titian and Monteverdi. If you want to 'convey solid information', then replacing one partially-related image with another partially-related image is hardly evidence of that. If you can "see images available that would illustrate the topic of the Opera L'Arianna much better than the Titian painting", perhaps you could provide them in a gallery here, as I do not think that the three images you have provided so far are not a step forward for this article. - SchroCat (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The connection: Turchi and Tintoretto were contemporaries of Monteverdi from around the same region. Their style of painting parallels his style of music. Turchi's painting is sufficiently close in subject to suggest a direct link. We seem to have dismissed the one from Bologna.
You have asked me to provide something that would illustrate the Opera better than the Turchi. Um! You are asking me to find something better than an image which shows dramatic action and details:
1. Ariadne Lamenting
2. Bacchus consoling
3. Venus crowning
4. Cupid with bow and arrows
5. painted at the time of the second (and major) performance,
6. 20 kilometres from where it was written....
Well, that's a big ask, SchroCat! Amandajm (talk) 06:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I asked if you could come up with something better than the Titian, something you've not managed to do so far - certainly not with the current image, which puts me more in mind of an insipid version of a bowl of soup than an opera! So far you have shown no images that are superior to the Titian, and have only provided a loose list of questionable suggestions, rather than a set of images we can all discuss. Given the comments against the current image, I'm minded to put it back to the Titian while this is under discussion, as per WP:STATUSQUO. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The Titian is a superb painting, in its own right. No-one would deny that. It's just 100 years too early, and was out of circulation when Monteverdi came along.
Since you have been a minor, rather than a major contributor to the article, and, like everyone else, had two days to discuss it before I made the change, why don't you stop blustering and leave it to those who have majorly contributed to give it a little thought and make further comment? You've made your opinion clear. It is based on your personal artistic taste, and not on suitability.
I have already been thanked by another contributor, and I'm sure that their opinion is as worthy as yours.
Amandajm (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your instructions not to join in a debate. I always enjoy that from someone who didn't contribute during the article development or the FAC. As to "being thanked", one swallow doesn't make a summer, just as one 'thank' doesn't make a consensus, and I'm afraid that you can't just dismiss me because we disagree. Now, are you going to provide a gallery of sensible suggestions we can all discuss alongside the Titian? - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Amanda, your tone is unfair and uncalled-for. I would not have asked SchroCat to contribute to the debate if I thought his opinion wasn't worth having. You call him a "minor" contribuor: you were no contributor at all. You make a lot of the fact that your gallery was here for two days before anyone commented, as though that is some kind of validation. We can't all watch every article we have an interest in all the time. You could easily have notified me on my talkpage of your thoughts, which would have facilitated a reasoned debate. Your unfortunate tone invites people to take up positions, rather than look at the issue calmly. As I have said, I have no great objection to the alternatives, though I think you are somewhat overstating the case in favour of your preferred choice. Can we drop the rhetoric, and look at the issue calmly? Brianboulton (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I am somewhat surprised to see that the lead image has been replaced. The current image is ok, but it is by no means the best. I much prefer the Titian image which is far more pleasing on the eye and compliments the article very well, and I would like to see it's reinstatement. I also frown on the behaviour of Amandajm who despite swapping the image without any prior discussion, goes ahead and seemingly tries to force another editor off these pages based on his opposed opinions. -- CassiantoTalk 12:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Possibly you don't need yet another opinion ;) - I prefer an image close in time to the composition and actually showing some of the plot, to one that was painted in a different period and shows mostly blue sky, however "pleasing on the eye" it may be. The difference in time would be less significant if the time of the composition was mentioned below it, but you know ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Gerda, the Titian "shows some of the plot", namely the arrival of Bacchus which is the climax to the whole story. There may be sound reasons for preferring the other images, but implying it doesn't reflect the plot isn't one of them. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary to date: Angela has made a forceful case for the change to the Turchi, but so far, of five editors (including myself) who were involved in the preparation or review of the article and have expressed a view, three (inc. me) prefer the Titian. One (Tim) takes a middlish position (Titian or Tintoretto), and another (Gerda) expresses a preference for one of the "contemporary" ones. Other views may yet be recorded, so I propose we leave the discussion open for a few days more. I shall be away from editing until 24th October, and maybe the final decision could be left until then? I propose we don't make any change meantime. Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed I was asked to comment here (I participated in the FAC) and have read all of the comments above. I agree that the Titian is visually very appealing, and that if there is to be a different painting used in the article, it should have a very good reason to be used instead. From what Amandajm wrote above, it appears that the Turchi painting has a much better connection to the opera, but I think that reliable sources are needed to back this up.

I looked at the Turchi painting and the information on it at Commons - see File:Alessandro Turchi (L'Orbetto) - Bacchus and Ariadne - WGA23156.jpg. This says the Turchi painting was created between 1630 and 1632 and that Turchi worked all his life in Verona, so it was presumably painted there too. The opera premiered in 1608 in Mantua, and was definitely revived only once, in 1639–40 for Carnival in Venice. So the opera premiered 22 to 24 years before Turchi created his painting, and was revived roughly a decade after the painting was made. While I do not dispute that Mantua and Verona are fairly close, is there any evidence from reliable sources that Turchi may have seen the opera or that there is any other connection between the opera and the painting? Otherwise this seems like original research. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

PS If the Turchi is included, then I think a note with ref(s) could be added explaining the connection. Would it make any sense to have two images of paintings depicting the same story (i.e. the Titian and the Turchi)? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. I don't think there is a sufficient case for two paintings depicting scenes from the opera story, when none of the available paintings have a direct connection with the Rinnucini/Monteverdi work. My feeling is that most editors concerned with the preparation and review of the article are not convinced of a benefit in changing the main image, and would on the whole prefer the Titian to remain. I have therefore restored it; this is not in any way to denigrate the suggested alternatives, and again I'd like to thank all who took time to participate in this discussion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Brianboulton, first let me say that I had no idea that you had invited SchroCat to comment. I simply found his comment rather rude and provocative.
Secondly, obviously we have a consensus of opinion here, based mainly upon the fact that the Titian is a truly great painting.
My opinion is that the fact that the work is great, that the reproduction is great and that it is well-konwn and striking, isn't enough to make it preferable. I expect, in an encyclopedia, the sort of contextuality that places the image as close to the subject as possible in time and place. Illustrating the same subject is not sufficient.
Baz Luhrman's choice of music for "The Great Gatsby" movie typifies the type of thinking that demands popular appeal. OK. He needed to sell. His market was young. He gave them music to sell the movie. Those of us who love the book wanted the era recreated with music of the period. Regardless of that, the effect was OK. Provided you were not looking for a period piece. Provided you didn't actually want to know something about the era. It was a movie, a commercial venture,not an encyclopaedic article.
I am trying to raise general awareness about choosing artworks to match the period of the subject of the article. Here is a Classic example, Medusa, where the writers have multiple choices and have placed the most famous work (Cellini's statue from the 16th century) into the section dealing specifically with the ancient mythology, instead of using the same image to head up the section on Art and placing the most notable truly Ancient work, created at a time when the myth was current, in the section to which it is directly related.
If I have succeeded in prompting you to consider this as an issue in the choice of pics for other articles, then I'm happy. Amandajm (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "rude and provocative"? I hardly think so. I have tried to reason with you in the same tone you have used, so I hardly think such disapprobation is neccessary. - SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


I'd love to read and hear the actual music of the article. There is an example of the music:

which is not ideal (choir), but would still be useful, at least in the =recordings= section.

  • It would indeed be good to have a version of the music in the article. I would like to hear the DWS version before passing a judgement, and I can't do this at the moment because I haven't had time to download the appropriate Java software. If it is of sufficient quality to be included in the article, some of the file description information needs tidying – a date of the recording would be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, there is a relevant score fragment:

Monteverdi - Lamento (L'Arianna) 1

which ideally should be translated into Help:Score and be able to be played, like this example:

\relative g' { \key g \major \time 3/4 \partial 4 d e d g fis2 d4 e d a' g2 d4 d' b g fis e c' b g a g2 \fermata \bar "|." }
\addlyrics {Good mor -- ning to you, Good mor -- ning to you, Good mor -- ning dear chil -- dren, Good mor -- ning to all. }

(see also Special:PagesWithProp/score and [1]) What do you think? --Atlasowa (talk) 12:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/L'Arianna

Top featured article[edit]

Congratulations on being the top featured article today, (a repeat from Oct-11-2013 featured article). The picture-choice is good; and as a music buff I appreciated reading. Interesting the example of 4/4 time in TALK has eight beats in each measure. Keep up the good work. Thanks, AstroU (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


I have removed the following information from the lead as a) it is unsupported by any sources and b) is not really leadworthy though could, if cited to a reliable source, be included in the article's body:

"A new completion of the "Lamento", which includes a setting of the surviving texts of the choruses to new music by Scottish composer Gareth Wilson (b. 1976), was performed at King's College, London University, on 29 November 2013, the 370th anniversary of Monteverdi's death."

This detail should not be re-added unless you can provide a reliable source that meets the featured article criteria. If in doubt please raise the matter here. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)