Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sei pezzi per pianoforte/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 January 2022 [1].

---

Sei pezzi per pianoforte

Nominator(s): Wretchskull (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

A beautiful set of pieces composed by Ottorino Respighi. They are simple and, unlike contemporaries, not boundary-pushing, but they immediately caught my attention. I was disappointed when I realized that there wasn't even an article about them on Wikipedia, so here I am, trying to give them the attention they deserve.

I want to thank @Intforce: for supplying me with incipits, @Gerda Arendt: for reviewing the DYK (and her incredible patience), and @Tim riley: for reviewing the GAN. This wouldn't be possible without you! Wretchskull (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Ottorino_Respighi_in_1903.jpg: when and where was this first published and what is its status in the US?

@Nikkimaria: After hours of digging, I think it's best to either change Respighi's image (which will not line up with the article time period) or simply remove it altogether. If there is any other editor who wants to voice their opinion, feel free to do so.

Just noting that this is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

There are no Respighi images that fit the FAC criteria; removed it. Wretchskull (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• The incipits need tags to reflect the copyright status of the original work

Done.

• File:6-Pieces-for-Piano-VI.-Intermezzo-Serenata.ogg: the current tagging claims this work is in the public domain because the author died over 100 years ago; however, Respighi only died in 1936. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it.

• Nikkimaria Is this a pass for image review? (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Aza24

• I love this set, especially Scherbakov's recording, which is just incredible! Just a few comments for now, but more later:
• It should almost certainly be mentioned in the lead how "Notturno" is the best known of the set
• Maybe add the publishing date (and perhaps publisher) to the lead? The sentence on it seems short anyways
• Is there anything from here that is of use? It mentions that Michelangeli had a well known performance of the "Notturno"; he seems famous enough for inclusion of something about that

I cited this booklet before switching to the Pedarra & Gatto one, as the previous booklet had minimal info already mentioned in other sources. As per recordings, I agree. There are far more recordings of the Notturno than any other piece of the set. The issue is that there are no reliable sources explicitly stating that the Notturno is the most recorded of the set.

I don't know that specifying that Notturno is the most recorded is necessary. What about a line like, "the Notturno alone has been recorded by ___, ___," etc.?

Do you mean by distinguished pianists? In that case I could have a line akin to "the Notturno alone has been recorded by Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli, Sergei Babayan, ..." and add a citation to each person with their respective recording.

That sounds like a great idea! Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speaking of the above, maybe a word should be said about the recordings of Notturno—I suspect many better known pianists have recorded that piece separately
• Pedarra & Gatto should probably introduced by the full names. Aza24 (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I've addressed your points and left a comment. Wretchskull (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• "composed by the Italian composer" still feels awkward, mainly because of the word "composed" twice. Imo "by Ottorino Respighi" is fine, but I'll leave this to your discretion

I understand. The problem with removing it is that "between 1903 and 1905" will be erroneously introduced in the clause ("... is a set of six pieces for piano by the Italian composer Ottorino Respighi between 1903 and 1905"). See this.

The only thing I would suggest is maybe "by Italian composer Ottorino Respighi written between 1903 and 1905" but I leave this to your discretion

• I am a bit confused why the line "Respighi displayed a prolific output of chamber music" is even there? Generally piano solos are not under the guise of chamber music—what's the reason for this line anyways?

I've removed it. One or two article sources considered the set as chamber music, a claim that isn't shared by any other source.

• the line "neoclassical compositional style while showing influence from past music" is a bit confusing. Since the neoclassical style by definition shows "influence from past music", the "while" doesn't make sense

I've changed it to "neoclassical compositional style and show influence from music of earlier periods"

• the Serenata is used, but not mentioned in the list of genres the work employs

Unfortunately there are no sources that explicitly state this even though it is evident. I'm not too sure what to do about that.

tis life, I wouldn't worry about it; you could put a "see also" at the top of that movement's section, but it is probably not necessary

• Year for Six pieces for piano and violin?
• Throughout the article a lot of people are mentioned (Nathan A. Hess, Giovanna Gatto, Luca G. Cubisino etc.), ideally they should all have a qualifier (when first mentioned) to explain who they are (and thus demonstrate why they have authority to speak on the subject), otherwise it is just a sea of names

I've added all available info about them. As for Hess and Cubisino, all that is known is each being authors of a PhD thesis. Do you want me to simply introduce them as PhD authors?

Some of them may be better as simply "Musicologist so and so" instead of listing the book, but either is fine. For the PhD ones, you could say "In his study of Respighi's music, Nathan A. Hess..."? Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• I would link Largamente to something
• "Despite its popularity, Alan Becker states that it is a rarely heard nocturne"— does Becker perhaps mean it is rarely heard in comparison to other nocturnes? That might be clarified if so
• I would link fifths and sixths to the articles on the respective intervals; the terms won't mean anything to non-musicians
• Looks good otherwise! Aza24 (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: I've addressed your points and left a few comments. Wretchskull (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Left a few responses. Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Aza24: Thank you, done. Wretchskull (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Outstanding work! I'm happy to support – Aza24 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I reviewed the article for GA and thought it clearly of FA potential. It is one of our more technical articles on music, with many terms that may be unfamiliar to the lay visitor, but they are explained or linked sufficiently, in my view. Unlike the nominator and Aza24 I don't know this set at all, but the descriptions are so careful and clear that I almost feel I do know it. A few very minor points on the prose:

• Lead

• "drawing influence from different musical styles and composers, particularly past music" – pretty much by definition the musical influences must have been music of the past, if only of the previous week – I wonder if something like "music of earlier periods" is wanted?

Brilliant suggestion, didn't think of that

• "Respighi's proficiency of Romanticism" – I think I'd say "in" rather than "of" here.

• Valse Caressante

• "the first is an ascending melody in longer note values, while the second consists of falling eighth notes" – I'd be chary of using "while" to mean "and" here: as the principal meaning of "while" is "at the same time" it can cause momentary confusion, as in "Miss Jones sang Schubert while Mr Smith played Beethoven". My own rule-of-thumb is to replace "while" with a semicolon in such cases, but there are other equally good ways of clarifying the construction.

Didn't know that, thank you!

• Canone

• "shows influence from César Franck, Ferruccio Busoni and Johann Sebastian Bach" – are the three listed in descending order of the extent of their perceived influence? Fair enough if so, but otherwise I'd be inclined to put them in chronological order.

• Notturno

• "chord progression: E-flat minor - G-flat major seventh - C-flat major seventh" – I think the Manual of Style would prefer spaced en-dashes to the hyphens used here.
• "predominantly pentatonic opening which resolves to B-flat two measures later" – could do with a comma after "opening" I think, this being what grammarians call a non-restrictive clause (descriptive, rather than defining).

Those are my few suggestions after a rereading today. None of them are of any great moment, and I am happy without further ado to add my support for this impressive and well-researched article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you very much! I've addressed your comments, and if there are any prose errors feel more than free to grill me here. Happy new year by the way! Wretchskull (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

No further questions, m'lud. And new year greetings cordially reciprocated. Tim riley talk 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Smerus

Thanks for this very informative article on music which was previously unknown to me.

A few tedious comments purely as regards the criterion of prose style, where the language seems to me in places a bit awkward (but that's just imo of course) :

- last paragraph of lead.

• "Some" four times - ? replace the first one with "Critical". Second sentence, I'd replace "the first one" with "the earliest", as "one" at present can only be construed as referring to "the set".

- last paragraph of 'Overview' - I'd suggest

• Sentence 3. Publishing the pieces together did not "reveal that Respighi did not intend to have uniformity among the pieces": that was only revealed if you knew they had been written separately (unless it is the case, which you do not state, that the differing dates were given in the publication); also best to avoiod having "pieces" twice in the same sentence. How about "Although the pieces were published together, Respighi had not composed them conceiving them as a suite"

I'm honestly confused by this point. The article states "The pieces were composed separately and then published together at different periods in a set under the same title, thus revealing that Respighi did not intend to have uniformity among the pieces" (I've added the bolded "at different periods"). Was this the loose end that I just tied? I really like your suggetion and I'll implement it tomorrow. I just have trouble understanding what is wrong here; probably just tired.

• Sentence 4: I would suggest, were his first pieces to be published
• Sentence 5: I would suggest replacing "Multiple" with "Many"

"Many" feels awkward in my opinion, because it is only about six pieces, and five of whom are derived from earlier works.

• Sentence 6: I suggest "except for the "Cannone" "

- Valse caressante

• link needed for rallentando

- Canone

• I'd say 'the influence of' rather than 'influence from'. and 'the Baroque period' rather than just 'Baroque'
• "to the point of Hess opining" - maybe "which led Hess to opine".
• '"the dense chords"; "and are immediately answered" would be better than "which is immediately answered"

I assume this is for the notturno, in that case, done.

- Notturno - last paragraph

• I'm guessing it's been arranged "for piano and for organ" rather than "for piano and organ"; or, as it was originally written for piano, do you just mean arranged for organ? The citation you give seems to refer only to an organ arrangement.

Source: " "Notturno," by Ottorino Respighi, arranged for organ and piano by Adolph Steuterman". The piece is for both piano and organ. The heading is understandably misleading in this context ("New Music for the Organ").

• I suggest "those by" rather than "ones by".

- Minuetto

• "Dedicated to the composer's study companion" would avoid R's name twice in the same sentence, and three times in two lines.
• " a tonic pedal point" would clarify what could otherwise be obscure if just left as a "pedal"

-Studio

• In this case the word "pedaling" might benefit from a link to Sustain pedal, as it's conceivable that some looking at the article may not be familiar with what pedaling means.

-Intermezzo-Serenata

• "fond of"? - maybe better "satisfied with"

That's enough pettifogging from me.--Smerus (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smerus: Please pettifog as much as you want about the language. I'm not a native speaker so you're just helping me improve! I've addressed all your points and left a few replies. Wretchskull (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a couple of brief meta-comments to go with my support.

• Overview sentence 3. Still not clear to me. Do you mean "The pieces were composed separately, but published together at a later period: Respighi had not conceived them as a suite."?

I've changed the wording and incorporated your suggestion. There are perhaps some things to note. The following quotes are exactly how the sources state the information. If you feel like my new wording still needs to be modified, please tell me.

Pedarra & Gatto pages 9 and 10:

"Although the Sei pezzi per pianoforte, p044, dating from 1903‒5, have attracted some attention, Respighi never wrote a collection of six pieces for piano – neither in his years of apprenticeship nor later in life. It is clear that these Six Pieces were not conceived of as a unity, and that their inclusion inside the same set of covers depended almost exclusively on the publisher’s custom of publishing collections in groups of six or its 10 multiples; indeed, Respighi’s contract with Francesco Bongiovanni detailed these pieces as separate compositions. By contrast, what survives of the (unfinished) Suite, p043, of 1903, manifests a stylistic unity lacking in this collection."

Cubisino page 91:

"Pedarra, mainly thanks to the agreement between the composer and the publisher Bongiovanni, was able to trace their compositional period, which dates from 1903 to 1905. It is interesting to note that they were united by the same title, Sei Pezzi, but published (and composed) in different times. This indicates that Respighi was not aiming for a uniform style among the pieces, like he did for the previous two suites, thus the choice of putting them together was merely editorial."

• Sentence 5. 'Multiple pieces' doesn't conform with common English usage in the sense you wish. How about, simply, "Five of the six pieces"?

I've changed it to the latter and gave an explanatory note.

In the meantime, I've downloaded the pieces from IMSLP and will try them out today. Many thanks for introducing them to me - --Smerus (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smerus: I've replied to your last two comments, thank you for the review! Hopefully these pieces are in lieu of a late Christmas gift - Wretchskull (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "demonstrates Respighi's proficiency in Romanticism" - source?

This is a paraphrase of a quote in this section: "Meanwhile, the right hand plays a simple but intimate melody, showing Respighi "at his most romantic." " (my bold). If this isn't allowed, I'll just change it to the quote itself if you want me to.

Simply being romantic and being proficient at Romanticism are not quite the same thing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it.

• The OCLCs provided for the recordings don't seem to match up with the bibliographic details provided, and the Allmusic refs don't all include release date

I'll try to fix that.

@Nikkimaria: The first and third OCLCs fit the details, as for the second and fourth, there are none available with correct details. These are the most correct I could find. Are OCLCs even necessary? As for AllMusic, the refs do include release dates, though some of them only show it on the "releases" section. What do you think if I just link all of them to the "releases" section, where the release dates are found?

No, OCLCs are not required. I'm not sure I follow your suggestion though - are you proposing adding those links inline? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've removed the OCLCs. What I meant with AllMusic is to change the ref links, but the AllMusic refs "release" sections do not match up with the release dates on the "information" boxes so ignore that suggestion. I thought about linking the recording refs to their original label sites, but the problem is that the Sandiford, Riccardo recording doesn't have a release date on the original nor on AllMusic. What would I have to do in that case?

Is there another source confirming release date? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've changed only the AllMusic ref links with non-existent release dates and linked them to the "Release" section, where the correct publication year is shown. Issue resolved.

• "The set has been recorded four times as of 2021" - source?

Isn't this WP:BLUESKY due to this section simply existing?

That section proves there are at least four recordings; it doesn't prove there are only four. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed it. It's unverifiable.

• Be consistent in how publication locations are formatted and when they are included

Fixed.

Not yet. For example, why include state for Steinberg but not Faurot? Why include location for Becker but not Oliver? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

All available locations have been added and are uniform with a city-only format.

• What is REPP?

It's a pseudonym used by an anonymous person.

• What kind of source is Jacobi?

A news source. Is there something missing?

There doesn't seem to be a publication title present, unless it's just misformatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it.

• Is the "National Review" being cited this one or a different one?

It's indeed the one you linked.

What makes that a high-quality reliable source for this subject area? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It isn't. Removed it.

• How do the theses cited meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

I've carefully made sure they both meet the criteria. Both were approved by specialists in the field and all quotes and statements are easily verifiable by anyone with basic knowledge of music theory. I've also made sure that facts about the work as a whole (which cannot be verified by anyone), such as in the Overview section, are almost all ubiquitous throughout both theses and the Pedarra booklets. Pedarra is Respighi's cataloguer and most prominent scholar.

• Are the Pedarra republications linked authorized? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you mean if they're reliable? In that case, read the point above.

No - my concern is whether they're linkvio. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The Pedarra & Gatto booklet does not violate WP:LINKVIO; it is available on the original product site. As for the Pedarra booklet, I'm not sure. Chandos records simply has the booklet, as displayed There is no proof of collaboration or permission on their main site, even on the "labels" section. I've removed the url for now.

@Nikkimaria: I (hope) I answered your questions. Also left a reply at the image review. Wretchskull (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria Have your concerns been adequately addressed? (t · c) buidhe 01:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  Almost - missing a location for March et al, and the two booklets should use the same template. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Done. @Nikkimaria: Thank you for the thorough review! Wretchskull (talk) 01:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Was coming along to promote this, but there's some minor close paraphrasing from one source. Can this be fixed first? (t · c) buidhe 14:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I've fixed the close paraphrasing. All there exists left are the "Sei pezzi per pianoforte", which is the title of the set and is used in the booklet. Also, almost everything close to the source is either a quote, translation, or even coincidentally part of the source. For example "while the left hand plays" is used in this article and the source even though it is not even quoted once in the "Sei pezzi per pianoforte" section of the booklet. Thank you for your time. Wretchskull (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 15:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.