Talk:L'estro armonico

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

stub

There isn't nearly enough info on this influential collection.Perlnerd666 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

case?

Shouldn't this be named [L'estro armonico]]?DavidRF (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what it is referred to in the original publication. I'll change it. BTW, once I get the proper materials, I am going to completely rewrite this page. It doesn't have nearly enough information and there is a wealth of background on this publication. Hamoohaha (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far the article wasn't moved yet to the correct case, i.e. L'estro Armonico → L'estro armonico. Would anyone object I make that a mere technical request (doesn't seem worth while to launch a full-blown WP:RM for as there has been no objection to this proposal since 2009, and it is the lower case spelling for "armonico" that is found in English-language reliable sources on the topic)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptions by Bach/Reception

The main articles on these are:

Normal policy is to wikilink to those articles. Transcriptions are not usually included under the general heading "reception". In the same way, reception does not mean what somebody has written about Vivaldi in the 21st century. It refers to the way in which the music was transmitted after it was written and the effect/influence it had. There is a large literature on this. Bach is not the only composer who composed concertos and was influenced by Vivaldi. I see no reason to write forked content on the second topic above in this article.The previous format was fine; only the wikilinks had to be changed, which is what I did. Francis Schonken has decided that his new approach is to create parallel content on wikipedia (also known as forked content), he should explain why. The content he is creating is of no use to the reader. Paraphrasing prose from reliable secondary sources is the normal process. I haven't seen anywhere that has occurred. Copy-pasting a sentence twice from Talbot is not paraphrase. Francis Schonken should explain himself. I would like to know why he is using primary sources from the 18th and early 19th century to create content. But more to the point, why is he trying to create parallel forked content all over wikipedia? Mathsci (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD:
- No reason to remove Scheibe material (see next section)
- OK for linking Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach and Concerto transcriptions (Bach) – in fact both were already linked through redirects, but can be linked directly via boilerplate "see also" for the section
- Afaik 19th-century transmission of some of the concertos of L'estro armonico was primarily through the Bach-Gesellschaft Ausgabe (which also published Vivaldi's originals along with some of Bach's transcriptions), so this is part of the reception history. An {{expand section}} tag can make clear this content needs further expansion.
- The audio examples have been on this page for a long time, seems disruptive to remove them without consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are using the article to create very poorly sourced content, which is properly discussed elsewhere; your intention appears to be to conceal that fact. t Please restore the direct wikilinks. Don't write "afik" if you have not checked for secondary sources. I doubt that Vivaldi's concertos became known through Bach's transcriptions. We don't even know how the transcriptions were communicated, except for them being in W.F. Bach's repertory. Many of the transcriptions were not considered to be by Bach at the turn of the 20th century. Mathsci (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scheibe transcription

The content based on Stinson 1992, and the Stinson reference (Scheibe transcription etc.) has now been removed twice from the article ([1], [2]):

The second of the four concertos for two violins (Nos. 2, 5, 8 and 11) was transcribed multiple times.^[1] Between c.1727 and 1735 Johann Adolph Scheibe produced a solo harpsichord version of this fifth concerto of the collection.^[1] Scheibe's transcription, transposing from A major to G major, was a simplification of the original, leaving out most of the middle voices.^[1]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c Stinson 1992, "Preface" pp. vii–xvi

No clue what would be the problem with this content & reference? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception from secondary sources

Francis Schonken has opined that the reception of these concertos was "as far as he knew" through Bach's editors. That preposterous statement is false. There are extensive commentaries on the reception of these concertos, which unsurprisingly can be found in the prefaces to published editions (and elsewhere in the literature). These contradict Francis Schonken's statement. Here is one example of such a preface from the Dover edition.[3] That source has separate sections on "Performance, dissemination and reception" and "Transcriptions and arrangements". J.S.Bach is not mentioned in the first section and is described as providing an oblique view of the concertos in the second. This source has good prose. It contradicts Francis Schonken's WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. His erroneous claim could have easily found its way into this wikipedia article, judging from his past edits on the reception of Bach's works. He could simply have written the statement about the Bach-Gesellschaft (his original research) and then given a link to the nineteenth century edition as a reference. No thank you. Mathsci (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Selfridge-Field's account of the reception (in the Dover edition) stops well before the start of the 19th century. The last print of the collection she mentions is 1751 (and c.1767 for a transcription of one of its concertos). Talbot 2011 speaks about the period of about two centuries between the steep decline of popularity of Vivaldi's music which set in around 1750, and the 20th-century Vivaldi Revival. He mentions L'estro armonico as the only compositions by Vivaldi that didn't go completely out of print in that period. Above I was only speaking about the 19th century: the Bach Gesellschaft's publication of part of the original concertos of L'estro armonico was a significant part of the 19th-century reception history of the set. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talbot explains the reception of Vivaldi in his Master Musicians Book. There is more discussion in Tonal Space in the Music of Antonio Vivaldi by Bella Brover-Lubovsky. These are not the only sources. The Vivaldi revival happened in the 20th century. Mathsci (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptions of concertos

In the table Francis Schonken has created, the reader will get the false impression that the list is definitive. FS has essentially ignored sources that directly address Vivaldi. He has given undue weight to Bach in this article. The Dover reference edited by Selfridge-Field mentions other transcriptions. One famous set dating from around 1720 (according to the Vivaldi Compedium) is the Anne Dawson book in the Henry Watson Music Library in Manchester.[4] Dawson's books contains four concerto transcriptions from L'estro Armonica for virginal or harpsichord; there are also 8 concertos from Op.4. 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Added the Dawson transcriptions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Dawson's book from around 1720 is a collection of transcriptions of works by various composers; the identity of the person who made the transcriptions is unknown. What you have added would be unintelligible to any reader. You seem to have lost track of communicating with readers. If you want to know how a person who is musically literate writes about L'estro armonico on a wiki, here is a good example: [5] Just honest and careful communication with the reader. Mathsci (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: What you have produced in this article is an unreadable mess. A reader is supposed to be able to read your mind. You were too lazy to explain what Anne Dawson's book is: you left it as an unexplained redlink. You left the table in a prominent place, without explanation. The section headings in the tables are misspelled or misleading. Why create this mess? I moved the table to where less confusion would be caused. You seem incapable of paraphrasing anything in a clear way. All commentators indicate that the harpsichord and organ transcriptions by Bach were composed at the same time. They do not say with certainty that all the transcriptions were made during the period when Prince Johann Ernst was back in Weimar. Besides one of that is properly referenced. It would seem that your aim here was just to create forked content on Bach, not to write about L'estro armonico. The mess is unsurprising. It is the result of disruptive editing without the aim of improving wikipedia or helping the reader. The discussion of keys is irrelevant. Similarly the discussion of Scheibe's arrangement. In the original it is explained that the arrangement is poor because the middle voices have been removed. Easy enough to explain, but you have not done that. You mangle what musicologists have written, as if you haven't understood what you have read. Unless this mess is made more readable soon, I will replace it by a short and readable summary without a table. Mathsci (talk) 05:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed message: we don't give details about the manuscripts of the transcriptions in this article, neither for Bach's transcriptions, nor for Scheibe's. Anne Dawson's Book is a manuscript: details about it should go in a separate article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a secondary source is? The preface to the pblished version of Anne Dawson's book is a secondary source which describes the book. On wikipedia our task is to summarise those secondary sources. Am I missing something? Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what you are missing is that in this article we don't describe the manuscripts of the Bach versions, nor the manuscript of the Scheibe version. Both could be described based on secondary sources: we don't do that in this article. A general description of Anne Dawson's Book could as well be given in a separate article. No doubt the article is viable. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources?

The section L'estro Armonico#Transcriptions has been tagged with {{primary source}}. The sources used in that section are:

H. J. Butler's 2011 article in The Diapason
Eleanor Selfridge-Field's introduction to Selfridge-Field & Correia 1999
Eleanor Selfridge-Field's introduction to Correia & Selfridge-Field 2005
Michael Talbot's 2011 book on Vivaldi
Russell Stinson's 1992 preface to Keyboard Transcriptions from the Bach Circle

None of these qualify as primary sources afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The dating of the Bach transcriptions, as recorded by you in the article, is not discussed in any detail in these articles. So at present there are no proper sources, primary or otherwise. In your text, you have dates between July 1713 and July 1714 for harpsichord transcriptions and 1713-1717 for organ transcriptions. The same source (Butler) is used for both. But Butler writes that both were written between 1713 and 1717 in Weimar. He is no more precise than that. In the notes he lists the references to Bach scholarship about the transcriptions; unsurprisingly, they are amongst the references in the article Concerto transcriptions (Bach). So the first statement is unsourced at present.

On the other hand, no Bach scholars who have written recently about the whole body of Bach transcriptions, have said with any certainty that they were all made during the period when Johann Ernst was back in Weimar. They express reservations or uncertainty. Everything is based on conjecture and plausibility, there is no binary "true" or "false". But the precise dating or uncertainty about the dating is irrelevant for an article on Vivaldi. At the moment the content you have written makes it look as if that was the main focus. Mathsci (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I addressed the issue. The date is important for showing the time between Vivaldi's publication, and Bach's adoption of the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same question for the {{original research}} tag: is there still anything to be resolved in that respect? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating the question: are there any potential WP:OR issues remaining, and if so: which ones? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working through the issues: are there any identifiable misspellings in the article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you have produced is still an unreadable mess. The rest of the article s written in a fairly clear way. Your section and style of writing is quite different. Most of the content is WP:UNDUE and guesswork. When there is no detailed description of the originals, why give this WP:UNDUE detail for transcriptions?It is not done in other wikipedia articles. One of the spelling mistake is obvious. If you cannot spot it, you shouldn't be editing articles on concertos. The section looks as if it is full of self-concocted forked content shovelled into it like a pile of horse manure. Readers will know who Johann Sebastian Bach is. But they will have no clue what the Anne Dawson book is. My suggestion at the moment is to remove the prose and leave only the table. That it a sort of damage limitation. Since you created a red link, you should write an article—a three or four sentence stub will do—on the Anne Dawson book. See if you can do that using only the sources. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to work through the issues one by one:

* WP:OR: none spotted afaics, WP:UNDUE calls for another template ({{Undue weight section}}).

* Spelling: it's always easier to spot someone else's typo than ones own – still don't see it: so please help out.

Re. "The rest of the article s written in a fairly clear way" – thanks for the compliment, I wrote or rewrote most of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Schonken has filled this page with annotations. But unfortunately—despite being asked to improve matters—he has still left the transcription section in the article in an unreadable state, in particular refusing to add any details about Anne Dawson's book there or elsewhere on wikipedia. I have therefore blanked the section while I take a little while to write sensible content that matches the rest if the article and the rest of wikipedia. Francis Schonken has been told that this was likely to happen if he did not improve the problems with what he had produced. He was given the chance to rewrite the content properly but did not do so. A week should suffice for me to make the changes. I am not in any hurry and certainly will not be rushed (or harassed). I will start by thinking about which sources need to be added. Even that could take a day or two. Mathsci (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: Re. [6] – per WP:CITEVAR please respect the citation format of preceding editors. In fact, there was no need for this section blanking: please present your proposed updates on this talk page, they can be implemented when there's agreement they are an improvement. Blanking a section in this fashion is not an improvement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you. As I told you a while back, your writing was of exceptionally poor quality and unreadable for any reader. At present I am in the process of creating proper content. I started adding three references and will almost certainly add more. You know very well that I don't have to present my proposed changes here. Nor, given the small number of references, is there anything wrong with changing the format. That way I can use harvtxt. That only helps the reader. You seem to be concentrating on me rather than the reader. I think there might have been an edit conflict somewhere. That must have been due to you pinging me. Mathsci (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree, it would be best to revert to the last version before the massive delete and the WP:CITEVAR changes (neither of which we agree upon). Then discuss and propose updates here, in the end there will always be agreement on what is best. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci:: please discontinue ([7]). There is no agreement on the WP:CITEVAR reformatting. What did you think: I'll force it through anyway? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. I am perfectly capable of writing that content. You failed to write anything intelligible to the reader unfortunately. I tried discussing it with you. You have responded with WP:IDHT and even now are trying to justify not including any information about Anne Dawson's book. You claim that it is a primary source so we cannot describe it. But when I first mentioned it on this page I gave the secondary source which describes the book and I even summarised that description. But here on this article talk page you claim that content cannot be included in the article. Are you crazy? Mathsci (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose your updates on this talk page, instead of in mainspace. If they are real improvements it will not be too difficult to find agreement. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You could not agree about the Anne Dawson's book. Your edits to the article have been poor, so you should let somebody, possibly with more experience, create the content from scratch. I do not envisage a very long section. You wrote exactly the same sort of thing on the article on Bach Sonatas for Obbligato Harpsichord and Violin. You even wrote a section saying that things couldn't be created from scratch. Mathsci (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see to be playing every game in the book to stop me creating content. I haven't created it yet. So you thought what it would be an interesting new ploy to start a discussion at WP:DRN. That is disruptive and a misuse of wikipedia. Wait until I have added the content and then make your comments. If you had not used this article as a place for forked content, there would not be a problem. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

<snip, per comment below> You stopped me creating content, then removed the content I had created. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NPA. I will probably include a version of the table, but the accompanying text will be quite different. As I say be patient. Wait to see what I write and then comment. I aim to make the content compatible with the rest of the article and to harmonise it with other articles, e.g. Concerto transcriptions (Bach) which overlaps with this article. Mathsci (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was working through the issues one by one, as I explained above. So, you be patient with that process. You are free to propose whatever suggestions you think fit, even implement them in mainspace, but not remove a text and table which according to the steps already processed was on a good way – that is: without replacing it by something better: blanking is not the way to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were being obstructive. I am thinking about the content and that cannot be done precipitously. I am starting by reading carefully what Selfridge-Field has written in her preface. That concerns both dissemination and transcriptions, which are linked. She refers to other transcriptions; and that perhaps is buried in the literature. There will be more context. Less irrelevant detail on Bach and more on Vivaldi. Please be patient. Wait and see. It is short section and the content should be harmonised with the rest of the article and other content on wikipedia. You gave many reasons for not providing context for Anne Dawson. I have a lot of experience in writing this kind of content. I will incorporate content on Scheibe, Bach and the Anne Dawson book, but in a slightly different way. It was not possible to do it incrementally. As some kind of rough guide (not a source), I am using Selfridge-Field's wiki article. The section is short and I don't imagine writing a huge amount. But I will attempt to make it readable, and not full of irrelevant details with no context. As I say, the preface of Selfridge-Field—which you have essentially not used—is the starting point; not the life and works of Bach. I also think that it is hard to separate dissemination and transcription. As I say some thought is required. Mathsci (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "You were being <whatever>" – WP:NPA, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "It was not possible to do it incrementally" – then please do so on the talk page. Alternatively: in user space. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "it is hard to separate dissemination and transcription" – conforms with my thoughts above: talking about the transcriptions here only makes sense as a reception topic for Vivaldi's work. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're editing too quickly for me to even proof-read what I am writing. You added none of the content from the preface yourself. In fact I was the one who mentioned that source (see above). Mathsci (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "You're editing too quickly for me to even proof-read what I am writing" – please use the preview button and/or start your draft instead of continuing replies that are starting to get repetitive. Look, I created a "#Draft" section below, which can be used for such draft (if you like it that way) – only saying: you're free to work there without me (or anyone else) interfering while you're working there. When you think you're about ready to go life with it (or would like some other input), you can always give a ping and ask what your fellow editors think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ping me. I asked you not to. Please do not add a running commentary. Mathsci (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Mathsci: Re. [8] – You're again removing something without replacing it by an improved version of the same. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re. [9] – Apart from the first half sentence this is a Structure topic, and is mostly a redundant repeat of what is already in the "Structure" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag for recordings section

See current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Full format for discographies – the current recordings section falls short of what can be expected here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with references, but with the fact that no performers [soloists], directors of groups or performing groups are specified (nor the genre of performance). Without those, the table has very little value. The problems are specific to this list. WikiProject Classical Music does not govern these articles. It can give advice, but individual articles have their own problems. It is quite clear that the companion article The Four Seasons (Vivaldi) fell outside the remit of WikiProject Classical Music a long time ago. Mathsci (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L'estro armonico is within the remit of WikiProject Classical music since 2007 ([10]); same for Vivaldi's Four Seasons ([11]). Also, I don't see how The Four Seasons is a companion article to L'estro armonico, seems like you're confusing with Vivaldi's Il cimento dell'armonia e dell'inventione. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Companion in English does not mean what you think and was clear from the context. The WikiProjects are advisory; they cannot impose rules on editors. I wrote that no artists are mentioned and you failed to address that point. If you want to improve the article, please discuss that content. What I wrote is that there is no mention of performers and that is not helpful to the reader. That is a problem. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Full format for discographies, where the issue (inclusion of performers etc.) is explained, and framed as a referencing issue, so {{refimprove}} is adequate until these issues are resolved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transcriptions in Britain and Ireland

I have spent a day researching transcriptions of these concertos. As usual Francis Schonken failed to locate proper sources. A reading of the published edition by Eleanor Selfridge-Field and Stinson's article and preface indicates that the French RV catalogue lists known manuscripts containing transcriptions. The British Library lists one such transcription of the most popular concerto (op.3 no.5, RV 519) due to the Swedish composer Johan Agrell in its catalogue (A Collection of Easy Genteel Lessons, for the Harpsichord ... To which is added Vivaldi's ... 5th Concerto, Set for the Harpsicord. Johan Agrell, Randall and Abell, 1767) and an image appears on page 20 of the Vivaldi Compendium. There is a long article on this particular concerto by Michael Talbot. I have added it to the references and will use it as one of the secondary sources. The full 1986 RV catalogue in French is only available in the reference section of the university library, so a little time will be required to check the comments on L'estro Armonico. Mathsci (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic trolling by Francis Schonken. Mathsci (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Added a POV section tag for the subjective use of "...pirated..." – which somehow gives the impression that Walsh's edition was less a "pirated" version than the later British and French editions. "Pirated" may also be a too presentist qualifier. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tag is also for the questionable sentence which manages to contain both "religious institution" and "distributed" but makes little sense of it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Francis Schonken's editing has degenerated to disruptive trolling. Yesterday he wrote things on this page that were highly disruptive. Francis Schonken suggested that a secondary source could not be used as a basis for the content here. He claimed that Anne Dawson's Book could not be described in this article because it was a primary source. There is a perfectly good secondary source which I am using Eleanor Seffrdige-Field. It is a faithful summary of the section on Dissemination, Performances and Reception. Faithful summary means that I more or less preseved the sentence structure. I then startea adding content from Michael Talbot's article on RV 519. That caused Francis Schonken to attack the article in a mad fit and place a POV tag there. I have removed that tage becase he is editing in a disruptive and uncontrolled way.

Francis Schonken seems to have no knowledge of the literature on Vivaldi as far as I can tell. But he seems to react to my excellent editing in an irrational way. After trying to hinder my editing by an inappropriate posting on WP:DRN, he decided to mangle what I am in the process of creating. Yet I mentioned above that I had found the article by Michael Talbot. He is a leading Vivaldi scholar, not somebody with a "POV". He is considered to be one of the world experts on Vivaldi. I started transferring content from his article on RV 519. It's a long essay and quite interesting.

Francis Schonken's vandalising of the article was purely disruptive. It was more or less vandalism. It clearly showed that he placed himself above the sources. But as far as Vivaldi is concerned the secondary sources I am using by Talbot and ES-F indicate how the article should be written. Francis Schonken's persona has brought a poisonous atmosphere to this page. Ignorant of the literature, he conduct here also seems to have elements of WP:BULLY. I have reverted his edits, removed the POV tag. The only POV I can see here is Francis schonken placing himself above the writing of two well-known Vivaldi scholars. His attitude to me—breathing down my neck while I am editing, making sneering comments, attempting to scare me from editing—these are the ploys of someone who cannot edit himself and is trying to hinder another editor far more capable than him.

Just to hammer hime the ignorance point. Talbot mentions all the known transcriptions in his article. RV 519 became known in the British Isles simply as "Vivaldi's Fifth"; it was so often performed in public and private that it entered the English language literature. The transcription of RV 519 which might be Scheibe gets two lines. There are harp transcriptions, pasticcios, Agrell's virtuosic version, and so on.

The problem with Francis Schonken's editing is quite clear. He does not go out of his way to find secondary sources. Tose sources provide commentary. Not having found those, Francis Schonken tries to substitute himself as the writer of that commentary. The result is that his own views are transferred directly onto wikipedia as if written in wikipedia's voice. But these rely on his guesswork. \We don;t have to go down that avenue, because the secondary sources exist. In particular the commentary in the RV catalogue describes most of the manuscripts and transcriptions. Francis Schonken should control his editing if he can. I am an expert editor and know what I am doing. Simple paraphrase from the best possible sources. I have removed Schonken's edits. He can explain them more carefully below. Mathsci (talk)

Sourcing and images

I will be looking over Ryom's 1986 book today. That is only available in a library. With Talbot's anecdotal 2010 article and Selfridge-Field's 1999 survey in the preface to the Dover edition of L'estro Armonico, that seems to be the main source for information about the transcriptions within Vivaldi scholarship. Articles are written by locating the best possible sources. I think I have been successful so far, but I would not be surprised to unearth other useful sources, possibly quite recent. (Talbot's article was only discovered by accident, although, before I found it, I was pretty sure that such an article must exist: Vivaldi scholars often refer to the topic.) The Vivaldi Compendium, edited by Talbot, also contains scattered information about the transcriptions, including a reproduction of the 1767 arrangement in the British Library, attributed to Johan Agrell. Talbot's 2010 article has a more detailed discussion with a score of the opening bars of the transcription.

The content is uncontroversial (i.e. not a matter of "POV" whatever that is supposed to mean); it is well described in the literature; and it is fairly easy to paraphrase. The large number of transcriptions, particularly of No.5, preclude a table. The transcriptions by Bach are properly described in their own articles; there is no need to rehash that content here. A simple summary is adequate. Eleanor Selfridge-Field has given an indication of how that can be done on her wiki; and I will probably roughly follow her format. She does not mention the keys of the transcriptions, so I see no reason to do so here. Those intended for domestic consumption, as described so colourfully by Talbot, were often transposed to easier keys. In the case of the transcriptions of Bach, the transcriptions are (will be or should be) described in detail in those articles. The main sources there are Williams' Organ Music of J.S. Bach and Schulenberg's Keyboard Music of J.S. Bach. I don't see any reason to enter into minute detail here, when there is no detail there. It is just confusing =for the reader. I will describe Anne Dawson's Book fairly carefully. Only a short description is needed. Manchester of course figures in Vivaldi scholarship (the Machester Sonatas). If possible, I will try to find images of the 18th century documents. What is easy for Handel or Bach is much harder for Vivaldi.

The purpose of this rewrite is to aid the reader: to give an accurate, informative and accessible account of Vivaldi scholarship concerning these concertos. Proper sourcing is essential. Vivaldi scholars have written at length on these particular topics; after that the task is to paraphrase and summarise the commentary that they have written. Mathsci (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on reception Vivaldi's neglect in the 19th century and subsequent rehabilitation in the twentieth century means that Vivaldi reception is quite different from Handel reception or Bach reception. That is well described by Vivaldi scholars and uncontroversial. It is easy to read in the literature; however, it still might come as a surprise for many readers. It is not a "POV". That is why reception refers to the 18th century in Selfridge-Field and why revival refers to the 20th century. As far as Vivaldi's music is concerned, the 19th century seems to have been the "Dark Ages". Mathsci (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the 1986 and 2007 Ryom volumes in the university library. This confirms that apart from the transcriptions by Bach and those in the Anne Dawson Book, all identified transcriptions were of BWV 519, as explained in the reference in Stinson (Ryom, 1986, pages 616–617). The 1767 Agrell transcription is the only one that was published. The others are described by Talbot, including the transcription that Stinson ,on page xiv of the volume he edited, describes as having Scheibe as the "possible transcriber". Mathsci (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Stinson1992Preface-1] Stinson 1992, "Preface" pp. vii–xvi

[1]