Talk:Don Lorenzo Perosi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Public Domain, no exceptions

creater of article wrote: "This article was written by Leonardo Ciampa on 29 July 2005. It is not under copyright; i.e., it is in the public domain and may be freely copied or reproduced in any fashion, provided that the name of Mr. Ciampa is given due credit."

If it is in the public domain, then Leonardo Ciampa has given up ALL rights to the content. There is no exception. Wikipedia users can, and probably will, remove his name from this page. It may be argued that the attribution data is still in the history, however that's a bit moot. If Mr. Ciampa wishes to retain credit on the article, then Public Domain licensing is the incorrect choice. Some type of With-Attribution licensing would be more appropriate. Eclipsed 20:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
All text on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Madder 21:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate

Grove has 20 December for the birthdate; unless there is a competing source I'm putting it in (I find it to be pretty reliable). Antandrus (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthdate correction

But Mario Rinaldi, who wrote the definitive biography of Perosi, has the birth date correctly as the 21st, and he explains precisely why that date is correct on page 17. In the interest of accuracy I have changed it back. (23 August 2005)

[edit] Tone and verifiablity

If the claim is going to be made that X said Y to Z, a source has to be given. In general, there's far too much speculation, personal point-of-view and conjecture in this article ("incompetent guitar-strummers"? Bloody hell!). I'm going to go through the article tidying it up later today, and I'd appreciate it if further additions could stick to WP:NPOV and have sources cited. --ajn (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, some of you guys cannot tell the difference between POV and established fact. "Incompetent" = not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully. "Guitar" -- a stringed musical instrument. "Strummer" = a person who plays an instrument with limited skill. If you guys don't know what an "incompetent guitar strummer" is, then you've never set foot in an American Catholic Church. If that is the case, STOP VANDALIZING MY ARTICLES. I HAVE been inside these churches, and what I am reporting is FACT. LorenzoPerosi1898 20:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lorenzo:
  1. Please calm down and moderate the tone of your remarks. Wikipedia is not a battleground.
  2. Neither you nor anyone else "owns" articles on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a collective effort to create a source of knowledge.
  3. Making a claim that someone is or is not a "strummer", if that term implies a negative judgment on their skill level, is clearly an opinion not an indisputable fact, and must be attributed to a cited source. See WP:NPOV.
  4. Wikipedia is not the place to report your personal knowledge or opinions unless they are backed up by WP:Verifiable sources. See also WP:NOR: All articles in Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources.
Grover cleveland 21:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia IS the place to quiet silly challenges that are jejune and a waste of everyone's time. You know, there's a bunch of you that need to listen to this: if a point-of-view is accepted by the "majority," i.e. "virtually everybody," IT IS NOT POV. Again, IT IS NOT POV. Can you guys or girls calm yourselves and stop getting excited everyone someone decides to insert some truth? You all are not the world's official arbiters of the truth, though I'm sure believing so makes you all feel fuzzy inside. LorenzoPerosi1898 00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Using UPPER-CASE and repeating yourself doesn't make your false assertions about NPOV any more correct or convincing. Neither does copying and pasting the same comment in multiple talk pages. From WP:NPOV (emphasis is mine):
The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. Grover cleveland 01:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"if a point-of-view is accepted by the "majority," i.e. "virtually everybody," IT IS NOT POV. " - actually this isn't true. For example, if 90% of the world believed in Father Christmas, that wouldn't mean that he existed. From their point of view he does, but it's not actually fact. LorenzoPerosi, I understand that what you're putting in the article though probably is absolutely true and totally accurate, and it's excellent that you're making such good contributions. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and everything that goes in it has to be verifiable - so if you could put some kind of reference/source for every fact you put in just to back it up, that would be great. Cheers, Madder 13:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Immature Vendettas

Grover, so now you have a personal vendetta against me and Lorenzo Perosi? Why does it disturb you so much that Monsignor Perosi was the most important Italian composer of sacred music during Pius X's cardinalate in Venice and, subsequently, reign as Pope? Every major source agrees ... but you don't, and you keep insisting on throwing in {{Fact}} tags. This immature behavior is, sooner or later, going to catch up with you. Meanwhile, show me the source. Find me one significant piece of writing that contradicts Perosi's turn-of-the-century fame. (Jeesh, some people have too much time to kill.) LorenzoPerosi1898 01:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks to All

... for your constructive criticism with regard to this article and to my contributions in general. I hereby agree to cool down the tone of my discussion and am hoping that we all can continue to work together without unnecessary sarcasm (Glen S.) or vindictive spirit (Grover C.). I am proud that Wiki dares to cover topics that Encyclopedia Brittanica may or may not have remembered to cover. I hope that you all will share this pride with me. Let's work together to make Wiki as valid, in the true sense of the word, as it can possibly be. Sincerely, LorenzoPerosi1898 09:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, there was no sarcasm in that comment. Please read Sarcasm! Glen 09:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your email to me re: Lorenzo Perosi

I have copied this from User talk:LorenzoPerosi1898 so that others may express their opinions;

You said:

"Explain to me how those three examples (and there are many others) are allowed to stay on Wiki."

Easy:

The difference, which is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the above statements are verifiable by respected sources I would use Britannica to verify your claim of Perosi being "the most popular Italian composer of sacred music at the turn of the twentieth century" however they dont even have an article on him. Perhaps that tells you something?


You said:

"Secondly, I'd be curious to know how you obtained your expertise in Italian music at the turn of the last century, so much so that you "know" that Perosi was "not" the most popular (not one of the most popular, the most popular) sacred composer in Italy at that time."

I dont need to be an expert, all I need to do is find the verifiable opinions of the experts. Your opinion means nothing here (and nor does mine) - expressing your opinion that he is the most (anything) is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.

Understand? Find a verifiable third party source that asserts he is the most popular, as in, #1, above all others, cite it and add it. Problem solved. :) Glen 08:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Glen, a very curious response. (1) All that bold face -- what happened to cool, Civility, et al.? (2) If something is incorrect, "repeatedly pointing it out" does not make it more correct. On the Perosi page, I went through the pains of typing, with my own little fingers, a bibliography. One of the items on that bibliography, the Rinaldi biography, has a bibliography starting on page 589 that goes on for twenty-seven pages (!). And that was 35-40 years ago. So: you and others can "repeatedly" do as you wish; however, shouldn't you look at the page in question? (3) Brittanica happens to be one encyclopedia, yes. However, your snide remark that their omission of Perosi "should tell me something" -- that is your own sarcasm to which I have no response. LorenzoPerosi1898 08:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
lol! I find it curious that you think all of 20 bold words contained within an entire 276 word post incivil! But the reason for the ~5% bold face was quite simply you seem to be unable to grasp two absolutely fundamental Wikipedia policies. And, when someone is "repeatedly pointing out" Wikipedia Policy then here, within Wikipedia, that does make them right.
And, please reread my post, my comment about it telling you something wasnt sarcasm - I was being serious. Those claims can be made about the other biographies you mentioned as they are verifiable by my trying one source (Britannica was the first place I looked and there it was in black and white for all three examples).
Finally, I'll say it again:
“ Find a verifiable third party source that asserts he is the most popular, as in, #1, above all others, cite it and add it. Problem solved. ”
Until such time, I find your latest edit to the article, once again, unnacceptable. I mean, if he's was THE most popular, you should have no trouble finding sources for that claim whatsoever! So save us this effort and just do it?! Until then, do not reinsert that claim. Thank you 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Glen, (1) I continue to find you to be extremely sarcastic. Sorry, but that is my impression. I am attempting to be civil, cool, etc., and I feel that you have not responded in the same spirit. (2) The source for "most popular" is every newspaper article in Italy written between 1898 and the First World War in which LP is mentioned, plus a 27-page bibliography (yes, 27 pages -- that's not a misprint) in a very noted and well-respected book. (3) Said newspaper articles and said bibliography ARE CITED, are cited, are cited, in the revised Footnote 1, which you ought to have read before your diatribe. (4) If that's still not clear enough for you, Leonardo Ciampa's recent biography is from a third party, in a book, which is published, and sold all over the world. What else do you want? Sorry, this is starting to seem personal (unless you always were interested in the goings on of turn-of-the-century Italy. Why your inordinate interest in this article?). Best regards, LorenzoPerosi1898 09:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Just quickly, from the Sarcasm article, it is defined as:
"...stating the opposite of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's awful"."
  1. If you can find examples of this then please show me as I find the accusation insulting.
  2. Your reference, here states nothing about his being the most popular - the claim "most" is the one that I, and many other editors want you to cite. Again, please cite a source that he was considered the most popular Italian composer of sacred music at the turn of the twentieth century - the source should state "Lorenzo Perosi is considered the most popular Italian composer of sacred music at the turn of the twentieth century" or similar. Do you understand this yet?
  3. My interest lies in the fact that complaints were laid about you at the Administrators' noticeboard, and, as an administrator it is my job to ensure policy is followed here. I have no interest in you, no interest in the specific subject, only an interest in Wikipedia.
Thank you Glen 09:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Ciampa op. cit. p. xxxii LorenzoPerosi1898 10:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcasm Exemplified

>[F]rom the Sarcasm article, it is defined as:

>"...stating the opposite of the intended meaning, e.g. using "that's amazing" to mean "that's awful"."

>If you can find examples of this then please show me as I find the accusation insulting.

OK, here it is:

06:51, 14 October 2006 Glen S (Talk | contribs) m (per the reference, if "It’s not easy to give you an exact idea of how popular" he is, we certainly shouldnt [sic] be trying. Changed the most popular (a firm claim) to "highly celebrated")

In other words, you didn't understand what Nobel Prize winning author Romain Rolland was saying? You didn't understand the sense of his words (albeit translated from French)? AND, you had the nerve to put "m," meaning a "minor" edit, knowing full well that I'd already reverted that sentence and would react to your edit? Then guess what, Glenny: you were being SAR-CAS-TIC. Now assuming you were not being sarcastic when you said you have "only an interest in Wikipedia," then for the sake of said Wikipedia, cut out the sarcasm, would you? LorenzoPerosi1898 10:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down. There's no need to start calling me names.
The above is not an example of sarcasm, sorry. Even it is was, its certainly not a rationale for you to take a condescending tone and begin YELLING. I remind you to please remain civil Glen 10:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

:The above is not an example of sarcasm, sorry. No, it's a perfect example that fits the very description that you gave above: stating the opposite of the intended meaning. Therefore, I am sorry. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lorenzo. Your quote from Rolland reads:
It’s not easy to give you an exact idea of how popular Lorenzo Perosi is in his native country.
Taken literally, that really doesn't tell us much about Perosi's popularity. First, it only talks about his popularity in Italy, a restriction that your claim "the most popular Italian sacred music composer" does not make. Second, it does not in any way imply that he was more popular than any other Italian sacred music composer. If you can find a quote from Rolland (or any other trustworthy source) that says "Perosi was the most popular Italian sacred music composer" then no one would be disputing this sentence. Thanks. Grover cleveland 13:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Re-read the footnote. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incivility and Baiting

Grove, you who follow every article I edit ... articles that previously you never went anywhere near ... but as soon as I touch them, there you are ... I gently remind you that Wiki keeps track of these patterns. Any admin, whose attention I would bring to the issue (and I will later today) will see that you're following me around in an attempt to antagonize. I, however, plan to completely ignore you and anyone else on Wiki who wants to bait me in such a way -- and I say that publicly to all Wiki editors, so that they might be emboldened to do the same. Wiki is a place to share knowledge, not to bicker whenever you or someone with similar behavior feels like fighting. All too often the person baited is the one who gets blocked -- again saying this to all Wiki editors, that they might beware of this monstrously uncivil behavior. Wiki is a unique and wonderful place to exchange knowledge, a place that I plan on enjoying for some time. LorenzoPerosi1898 13:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, you may wish to apologise for your comments Glen 13:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A note to you and Grover C.: you are both henceforth going to be completely ignored by me. Put as many comments on this talk page as you will; you will receive no response. LorenzoPerosi1898 14:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My observations

LorenzoPerosi1898 I would like to point you too WP:OWN this is not your article, as soon as you it the save button on the page you lost your "ownership" and please reread WP:NPOV which tries to have unbiased articles and just report facts. Those facts should also be Neutal or be backed up by more than one source. I could add a section about how stupid George W. Bush is and cite a few liberals such as Cindy Sheehan and use those as "facts" but in the larger scale that is not true but with the POV that i had it is. please make sure that you follow WP:NPOV Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 14:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warming against Gwernol

Dave, you did not even both to look at Moeron's edit and his comment. He made a revert claiming that the "source" didn't back it up. He did not read the source. He did not and could not have received Ciampa's biography in less than 24 hours. You guys really protect each other, don't you? LorenzoPerosi1898

Who is Dave? Anyway, what I protect is the encyclopedia. I've never come across Moeron as an editor before and have no connection with him (or her?) whatsoever. I see you are just as quick with the accusations as ever though. Gwernol 21:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I apologize for the "edit comment". I looked at your sources, like you said we should, and thought you were quoting the exact line, which did say "the most popular". I made a easy mistake on that one and I am humbled by it. That said, there are still contentions that there are other popular Italian composers of sacred music alongside Persoi, such as T ebaldini[1], that have made equal, if not greater, contributions to the scope of sacred music at the turn of the 20th century. -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 21:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about this article

Friends, i am brandnew to Wikipedia and have not edited any articles. Naturally I have read all of the articles pertaining to Catholic composers, which is my area of avvocation. I have read the "History" of the article on Don Lorenzo Perosi, and I am very surprised by much of what I saw. I was hoping someone could explain a few details to me. 1) Obviously there was a lot of personal editing conflict between editors. However, what I don't understand is, if an editor gives a fact that is easily provable in at least one written source, why does the history say "reverting to such-and-such version using popups," just because of personal acrimony? For instance, in one of the versions of this article, Arturo Sacchetto the world's leading Perosi scholar is quoted as saying that Perosi wrote 3-4 thousand works. This quote is corroborated in the biography by Merlatti, which I own, and that of Ciampa, which I consulted at my library. Why, then, was the word "prolific" omitted from the article? Hovanhess (sp.) and Pinkham combined didn't even write 1,000 religious works. Why is it wrong to say that Perosi was the "most prolific sacred composer of the 20th century"? He was, wasn't he? Thank you for your time.FriendOfCatholicMusic 19:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits made by sockpuppets of banned/blocked users are generally reverted as per WP:BLOCK#Evasion of blocks. -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 19:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I also wondered about the points raised by FriendOfCatholicMusic. I'm also a newbie like Friend but have used Wiki for many months. However, even if "edits made by sockpuppets of banned/blocked users" (I don't know what any of that means) even if those edits are reverted, is there not some mechanism for determining if said edits are TRUE? In other words, if a sock or one of these people should make an edit, you're saying that the edit has to be automatically reverted. Fine. But what if this sock noticed a mistake or omission. What if the article on Abe Lincoln said he died in 1856 instead of 1865. You're saying that if it were a sock or a shoe or whatever who made the change from '56 to '65, it's Wiki policy to immediately switch it back to '56. Isn't there someone, a higher-up editor, someone, to come in and say, "Well, he was a sock or a puppet or whatever, but he's right, the correct date is '65, so let's have a non-sock make the correction." I guess what I'm asking is: doesn't Wiki aim to refine the articles? Or do they aim to refine the articles ONLY IF the refiners are part of the in-crowd, non-rule-breakers? I've often wondered about this and I thank you for your time. InManusTuas 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally hear what Friend and InManus are saying. Just look at the history of this Perosi page. Like, tons of info was reverted out, yet no one could refute the veracity of any of it. I agree that there was a sockpuppet with an overactive thyroid at work, here. And all the editors got annoyed and pounced on the guy or girl. But why does an uncontested fact -- for instance, that "Perosi was the most prolific composer of sacred music in the 20th century" -- why does a fact like that STAY edited out? I mean, if I'm like reading the Article History correctly, a leading scholar said it's true, then two books back up said scholar. And I mean, look at your own categories! Look at Wiki's category for "Roman Catholic Musicians." None of the people in that category wrote 3,000 pieces. Most of them didn't even write 300, probably. So how come all the swift reverts -- swish!!! -- but the facts don't get put back in? UneJolieMelodieViennoise 05:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a problem with "most prolific" though. There's no problem with saying that he was prolific, but the word "most" is a problem - who should decide if someone is the most prolific? He could be the most prolific in one place, but not somewhere else. And for how long was he the most prolific? And how do we know he was the most prolific? Because one scholar happened to think he was? It's a sweeping statement that should be avoided, and it's not from a NPOV. Madder 02:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
And can I also point out that the users InManusTuas and UneJolieMelodieViennoise have both only made one edit to this date... and that's their comments on this talk page. Peculiar. Madder 02:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Dude, this is the 50th anniversary year of Perosi's death. Attention paid to this article is not peculiar! In any case, your latest revisions are awesome. Let's hope no more vandals get to the article, and if they do, that it gets reverted to the current version. Good show! UneJolieMelodieViennoise 06:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
People who are active on wikipedia are often (with good cause) somewhat suspicious of multiple new accounts that appear at the same time and edit the same pages, as this is behavior closely identified with vandals and other such problematic people. Not an accusation, mind you, but something that is commonly scrutinized.--Dmz5 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's always interesting to see a person carry on a conversation with themselves using different user names. And if this person is who I think they are, even more entertaining. Classic sockpuppetry. Yankees76 15:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tone

I don't want to reopen the conflicts that apparently wracked this article a couple of months ago, but I simply had to comb through the biography and remove all the repeated assertions that this priest and that church is "famous" and "important." This article is, in my opinion, very well written (if perhaps a little too enthusiastic), and I feel that it is made immeasurably better by keeping out these small but unencyclopedic details.--Dmz5 08:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dmz5, although I cringed at this article being changed yet again, I looked carefully at each of your edits, and I respect & understand what you did. I have only one slight concern which perhaps you could address. I thought to myself, "What the article doesn't get across is that Perosi, for a brief few years, had Elvis-like fame." I immediately went to the Wiki article on Elvis, to see how the problem was dealt with there. "Elvis Aron Presley (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977), often known simply as Elvis and also called "The King of Rock 'n' Roll" or simply "The King", was an American singer, musician and actor." Inadequate so far; but I read on. "He remains a pop icon and is regarded by some to be the most important, original entertainer of the last fifty years." See, you cannot omit "most important" if a person really was "most important" in some respect. That is the only remaining aspect of the Perosi article that needs to be amended. Let me state it in normal English, and you can suggest the appropriate Wiki-ese translation. It's Italy in the 1890s. Everyone's writing opera. No one since Carissimi had written an oratorio of any appreciable fame. Opera, opera, opera. Now here's this Wunderkind, a really brilliant guy, and young. And he composes these huge oratorios, based on the gospels, in Latin, fusing Renaissance and Baroque counterpoint with the Verismo orchestrations and sensibilities of the day. What?!?!?!? The word "galvanized" was one that you took out. But what other word can you use? Italy was turned on its ear, and not because I say it, but because the New York Times wrote in 1890-something (check the article) that Perosi's fame was second only to Mascagni. And Romain Rolland wrote that it's difficult to give you an idea of how famous Perosi was. So in my humble opinion, somewhere in the first line some verbiage needs to be restored, indicating -- correctly -- that Perosi in his day was one of the most famous composers in Italy. And famous really is the word. Secondly, when discussing the oratorios -- where "galvanized" was taken out -- something else needs to be put in, because the oratorios caused nothing less than a sensation. Thank you for your work and intentions. InManusTuas 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I made some changes per your suggestion - I even found a web citation in the Grove re: his brief but enormous fame. Thanks! -Dmz5 09:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
As a sidenote, it's always interesting to see how many composers can acheive enormous fame during their lifetimes but fade so quickly - Italian music history in particular is full of such stories, although this is partly because Italy churned out composers like few other nations.--Dmz5 09:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Again, I do not want to open old wounds, but I feel I should point out that the Grove article includes a number of things this article explicitly says are incorrect, such as an alternate date of birth and a claim that he was institutionalized briefly in 1922. Now, the Grove article is based on a dozen sources (though admittedly, they are somewhat old.) This article, with its very specific refutations of those claims, is based chiefly on one recently published work. Now, frequently new publications will come forward that make similar claims - "new scholarship shows that X was probably born on July 4, not July 3" and the like. I propose that the strong wording in this article - for example, "he was not born on x date, as some believe, but Y date" and "he was not institutionalized, as some sources claim" - be altered to demonstrate that there is scholarly disagreement at the moment. Currently, the article takes the POV that the new source is the only correct one in these examples. --Dmz5 10:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, your latest revisions are very nice. Smooth! The Grove additions are good; however, I wouldn't go too far with the date-of-birth thing. I don't know of one person in history for whom an EARLIER d.o.b. is the correct one! I don't own the Rinaldi biography; however, "someone" wrote that page 17 of that book explains why the December 21st birthdate is correct. Personally I wouldn't touch it until reading said page from said book. I'm guessing that the Rinaldi bio is one of the "definitive" ones and that he knew better than we do. UneJolieMelodieViennoise 10:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, my suggestion does not necessitate reading the book. I have read the Grove (which is easier to access than the book in question and is arguably inherently a more authoritative source) and it says something explicitly different. I am propsing that we acknowledge there is an unsettled matter. We should not ignore easily available sources in favor of a source that only one editor of the page has actually seen.--Dmz5 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I read what you did. Bravo. You do wonderful work, and the Perosi article deserves it. (For comparison, take a glance at Dean Martin. YIKES!!!!. P.S. Should it be scholarship suggest or scholarship suggests? Thx, UneJolieMelodieViennoise 18:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
It is difficult to evaluate claims that come from books that users have limited access to, but of course it is dangerous to insist on web-based sources as they are not always available/accurate. Luckily for music articles, we have the Grove online.--Dmz5 19:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One of the references

The one reference that is sourced in the initial paragraph irks me: "According to biographer Graziella Merlatti, Perosi was the most prolific composer of sacred music of the 20th century. According to musicologist Arturo Sacchetti's estimate, Perosi composed 3,000-4,000 works. All of the sources (see Bibliography) agree that Perosi was the most influential composer of the Cecilian Movement, q.v." my question is, what is the book name by Merlatti and page number of this statement? -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job messing up the intro. Now it is worse now than before. I give up! --Donut Shop Worker 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Perosi with Mascagni and Giordano

What is the context of this portrait? Some ceremony? Grover cleveland 15:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The induction into the Accademia d’Italia (1930). Cilèa was miffed that Giordano got picked but not him! However, the committee felt that Cilèa "hadn't written anything good in a while"! Of course, Giordano wrote little of importance after Chénier, so one sees a tad of hypocrisy! Young Kreisler 18:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is a copyright problem with this photo and its duplicate on Commons. The person who supposedly released rights to it does not appear to have owned those rights, and hence could not release them. I'd appreciate if someone familiar with the topic would follow up: I may be missing something. For en-wikipedia there may be a non-free use justification; Commons does not allow non-free use. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)