Talk:Carlo Gesualdo

Murderers

There has been research done via the painting with him in it that suggests very, very strongly that not only did he NOT kill the infant, but that the infant never existed, and was just a story made up to make him look worse. I'd not be surprised it this "father-in-law" business was the same thing, just a false tale made to besmirch him. There is good reason to believe that he did indeed feel guilt and agony from these deaths all his life.

I direct you to another site with Gesualdo information: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~rneckmag/gesualdo.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.115.55 (talk • contribs) .

Yes: there are no records from official sources (as far as I know) for either of these two additional murders. I added another line to that paragraph indicating exactly this. Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Watkins's biography, the murder of the son-in-law is pure hearsay; the quote cited is not verifiably contemporary, but rather from an account written in 1863 by C. Modestino, supposedly based on an original contemporary doc that is now lost. The main reason this tale continues to be circulated seems to be the large winged infant in the painting at S. Maria della Grazie, which some believe to be the murdered child. (As an aside, this article suggests that the painting was commissioned in 1600 after the death of Carlo's second documented child, although Watkins strongly believes the painting was commissioned much earlier - between 1592 and 1594, after which Gesualdo departed for an extended stay in Ferrara. I think this ought to be mentioned/corrected as well.) Epn10 (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right, and I don't have the Watkins book with me here. Go ahead and fix it with the information above if you like; I think it's useful to mention the tale, because it's so widely circulated, but also to mention that it's unverifiable. As of the painting, I no longer remember where I got that date, and even if it was me who inserted it, so feel free to change that and cite Watkins. Antandrus (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Works

It would be greatly useful to find a catalogue with his books of madrigals. Where can we find it? --Leonardo T. de Oliveira 14:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can add a works list to the article (I'll put on my to-do list--maybe tonight). In the meantime you can find a complete list at grovemusic.com (subscription access). Unless I hear any objection I'll do the madrigals by book, i.e. I'll list the contents of each book with the publication date. Antandrus (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Documents/References

Documentary "Gesualdo - Death for Five Voices" (1995) by Werner Herzog is not mentioned at all. //arl

Hmm

"...was an Italian music composer, lutenist, nobleman, and murderer of the late Renaissance"

IMO this sounds silly, I'll remove it because the very next sentence mentions the murders anyway, and THEN an entire section. Lethe 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Does not only sound silly, but false, too. Wikipedia is not a court of law where the entire subject is to be reduced to one deed of his. He was a nobleman alright, a noted composer and lutenist by profession, and we are keeping him in our encyclopedias for the composer part. And that is where his primary identity labels end. The biography then must contain everything else that is important to the composer's life. Anapazapa (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:VPP#The murderer Gesualdo where I've taken this up again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixing "murderer" in with the other epithets makes it sound like it was a profession. When a person is notable for crimes separate from their occupation, it reads better as separate sentences, eg:

Carlo Gesualdo (Venosa, 30 March 1566 – Gesualdo, 8 September 1613), also known as Gesualdo da Venosa (Gesualdo from Venosa), Prince of Venosa and Count of Conza, was an Italian nobleman, lutenist and composer of the late Renaissance era. He is remembered for writing intensely expressive madrigals and sacred music that use a chromatic language not heard again until the late 19th century. He is also known for killing his wife and her lover, with reports he also killed his own son and father-in-law.

—sroc 💬 18:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate

Could anyone please rectify the sentence about his birthdate? Exact data are found in http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo (first sentence of "Biografia"). -- Gprini 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality

I question the relevance of this to an article about a musician, but the following website claims that Gesualdo dallied with both sexes. Hmmm. I suppose it is rather interesting when one takes into account how much of the article is devoted to scandal and murder, it does make for even more interesting reading:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/gesualdo.htm

I had no idea how to fit it into the article!

21:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I read all of the biographical matter available (Gray/Heseltine, Watkins, Grove) before writing the article, but do not remember seeing any reference to something like this. Unfortunately the author of that website does not give a source (all the other details in his article are correct, as far as I can tell). Interesting ... Antandrus (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Gesualdo's Locks

"Gesualdo had arranged with his servants to have the locks of his palace copied in wood so that he could gain entrance if locked." Yes. What does this mean, exactly? How would it help to copy your locks in wood? Should it say 'keys', perhaps, rather than locks?--JO 24 (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hm, while I wrote the article, I didn't add that part. It's obviously wrong as is, and your suggestion is a good one. I don't have the Heseltine book nearby, but what I remember is that he arranged to have the locks seem to latch, but yet be openable from outside; it might have involved another set of keys. Antandrus (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is meant that a lock's copy made of wood works with the same keys, so one would not easily notice the fraud, but may easily be destroyed when locked. But I can neither confirm nor reject this point, my sources say only that the locks had been corrupted. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review

I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. This article is B-class; through some oversight, we do not know what (professionally), if anything, Gesualdo was doing in Naples (or when he's known to have moved there) before the murders. My full review is on the comments page; questions and comments should be left here or on my talk page. Magic♪piano 01:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe I didn't make it clear. The town of Gesualdo isn't far from Naples; as a prince he had several palaces, including one in Naples. I'm sure you could get from one to another on horseback in the sixteenth century without much trouble. There's a picture of his Naples digs in one of the books I used to write the article but that was a library book, so I can't look it up again. Gesualdo really wasn't a "professional" -- he didn't need a job, and while he devoted his life to music didn't need to make any money at it. He was a melomaniac -- one obsessed with music -- (had that word in the article but people kept changing it idiotically to "megalomaniac" so I took it out) -- and other than hunting, screwing, murder, and self-flagellation, he had no professional life. Antandrus (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, none of what you say really surprises me, but it all could be a bit clearer in the article.

I think I forgot to mention this in the review -- the one-line paragraph about him being bipolar struck me as being out of place. The fact (especially the "widely believed" aspect, which really ought to be elaborated by specific mention from suitable sources) ought to be integratable into the text elsewhere, since there's plenty of discussion of his behavior and mental state. Magic♪piano 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that sentence. I didn't put it there, and I think I took it out at least once. It's certainly not in any source I've got.

This was a frustrating biography to write, because it keeps getting degraded by drive-by edits, which usually dumb it down or take out the juicy bits. And who had a juicier biography than Gesualdo? I may put some of it back -- after all, I took it from Gray, Heseltine, and others -- unfortunately that was before I was using inline cites so I'd have to get the books again to put in precise refs. Antandrus (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Madrigal "O malnati messaggi"

It was great to include a catalogue with his madrigals and its correspondence to each book (in madrigal repertoire it is not always indicated, and everything becomes free and detached). Thanks to Antandrus. But in this catalogue I couldn't find "O malnati messaggi", madrigal probably from the third book. Is there a reason for that? And isn't there an order for each madrigal book content? We can deliberately consider them in an alphabetical order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Teixeira de Oliveira (talk • contribs) 19:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Relics

It said Gesualdo asked Cardinal Borromeo (his uncle) to send him relics (skeletal remains) of his uncle, which makes no sense. I removed "of his uncle Carlo." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.12.97 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

They are two different people -- Carlo Borromeo died in 1584, was canonized in 1610, and Carlo Gesualdo was writing (over and over and over!) to Cardinal Federico Borromeo, shortly after the canonization. I can cite the Grove article if you like. Antandrus (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Killing of wife

Is it really "ridiculous" to describe the means by which he is alleged to have killed his first wife and lover (not to mention the possible other two)? If no details are known, shouldn't this be clearly stated instead (perhaps in a footnote), as this casts further doubt on the veracity of the allegations? I quite agree that Wikipedia is not a tabloid. But the method(s) of murder are not "gory details", they're just facts (if they actually exist). Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to research the topic in reliable sources, and add content to the article accordingly. My reaction was entirely regarding the {{how}} tag, suggesting the article would be somehow incomplete without the gory details. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll dig out my back issues of Venosa Enquirer. We obviously need an "add gory tabloid details" tag. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Apparently, forensic psychiatrist Dr Ruth McAllister has used the murder as a case study. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely, there's enough material to be found for a separate article on the killings (never doubted that), like we already have a separate on some of his compositions, e.g. Tenebrae Responsoria (Gesualdo). For me the balance for the biography article would be that neither his music nor the extraordinary events of his life get most of the focus, for which the end of the current lede might be a good compass: "The fascination for his extraordinary music and his shocking acts go hand in hand" – the link you provided above to the I Fagiolini program shows the same approach splendidly: concert (Gesualdo's music) intertwined with "case study" analyses. That's the artistic approach, but for the encyclopedic approach the same kind of balance can apply: divide the attention more or less equally between music descriptions and biographical detail. More biographical detail could eventually be spinned out to one or more separate articles, like we have separate articles on some of the compositions too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You must mean spun. But an interesting idea - I fear I might get caught in your web. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC) ... you can't beat a few musical beans

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Carlo Gesualdo/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Composers Project Assessment of Carlo Gesualdo: 2009-02-25== This is an assessment of article Carlo Gesualdo by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by Magicpiano. If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down. Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status. ===Origins/family background/studies=== Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described? ok ===Early career=== Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? What was his job at the time of the murders? Presumably something in Naples? When did he go from Venosa to Naples? ===Mature career=== Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed? ok ===List(s) of works=== Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article. ok ===Critical appreciation=== Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)? ok ===Illustrations and sound clips=== Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.) Images and sound present. ===References, sources and bibliography=== Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references? Article has references; some inline citations. ===Structure and compliance with WP:MOS=== Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.) ok, but lead should be lengthened ===Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review=== Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE) Article lead needs work (WP:LEAD) ===Summary=== Ooh, a spicy biography (rubs hands). Interesting character, mostly well-covered. It is strangely ambiguous at first where the murders take place. It says they took place at his palace in Naples; it does not say what he was doing in Naples (janitor? court composer? rich nobleman?) or what is known of his arrival there. The article could use more images, and, if formal review is desired, more inline citations. Article is B-class. Magic♪piano 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The quote from New Yorker, etc.

To editor 2601:187:8400:654a:ec6f:e614:687a:9f3: I can keep reverting you all day. Per WP:HONORIFIC, we're not adding don to the subject's name. You haven't made a case for adding the quote from The New Yorker and you don't have consensus. Per WP:BRD it's time to discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Smart Aleck: this would be the appropriate place to discuss your proposed additions to the Gesualdo article. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey Francis Schonken, this is Smart Aleck. Like you said, we could start a discussion about my editions to the article here. I'm sorry for the delay. Smart Aleck (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@Smart Aleck: Again, please use this talk page to explain your edits if you want to see them accepted. Regarding "But ...": this is generally avoided per the guidance found at WP:EDITORIAL, i.e. "but" is generally avoided unless a reliable source uses that wording in its description, and then it needs to attributed to that source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, it would be a good time and place now to discuss about my edits. First things first, you noticed that I added the word "but". Of course, I now get it and understand that I should be citing a reliable source that uses the word. By the way, one thing I think we should really discuss about on this page is my past edits on Gesualdo's killings of his wife and her lover. Smart Aleck (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carlo Gesualdo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120405162321/http://www.paolaerdas.it/clip/pe2.mp3 to http://www.paolaerdas.it/clip/pe2.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Musician vs composer?

Why is "As a musician he is best known for writing intensely expressive madrigals and pieces..." to be preferred to "As a composer he is best known for writing intensely expressive madrigals and pieces ..."? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead reversal

Francis Schonken: Could you please clarify your reversal of my edit? The lead neither makes nor made any explicit statement about Gesualdo being acquitted. Furthermore, you may restore/insert that information, rather than reversing the changes that ensured that the lead is in line with policies such as WP:NPV and WP:WTA. Thank you in advance for responding. Toccata quarta (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your version of the lead was not a correct summary of what is sourced in the body of the article. That body still has many issues that need to be addressed. I'm getting quite tired of drive-by editors, who seem not to care about this article and its content, but seem bent on keeping its lead as far as possible from a NPOV version of article content that can be sourced to reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not someone is tired is irrelevant to the quality of the article or the lead, as I'm sure you'll agree. I'm an active editor of classical music and composer articles, so writing me off as a "drive-by editor" seems rather gratuitous, although that should not affect anyone's judgment of this article's prose and content, anyway.

Regardless, the question had to do with factual errors. Which ones did the new version of the lead contain? You appear to be a seasoned en.wikipedia editor, so you should know by now that phrases like "intensely expressive madrigals", "gruesome killing" and "his extraordinary music and for his shocking acts" are not consistent with WP:NPV (a policy you have just invoked) and WP:WTA. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Re. "the question had to do with factual errors" – which was not the main reason for my revert (for clarity, its edit summary reads: "what, again? no, was acquitted of murder"). If the reasons for that revert are clear (since, apparently, no further questions need to be asked about it), I'd suggest we concentrate on improving the article rather than having an elaborate talk page discussion about all sorts of unrelated questions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)