Grammar is not the issue.
As ever, the only issue is whether the sentence can be understood. If we take the sentence He provided him money for his friend, it cannot be understood, because it contains ambiguity.
Please bear in mind that those rules which textbooks describe as English grammar are really only a set of broad guidelines (which don't always apply), and be aware too that they were only invented in order to teach foreigners how to speak English.
The English don't learn these rules, and we generally have no idea what rules textbook writers have invented to try to describe how English works. English is really an illogical structure, very ad hoc, not really susceptible to being written down as a few simple rules.
For example, the sentence mentioned above is simply ambiguous, as it contains too many prepositions: he, him and his.
By the time you have reached the third of them, the sentence has no meaning, because the third one could apply to either of the previous two, each of which means a different person.
Now, I have no idea whether any so-called rule of grammar has been violated here; but I do know a meaningless sentence when I hear one.
Don't worry too much about objects: a sentence doesn't need one. Jesus wept is a valid sentence, but it's only got a subject (Jesus) and a verb (to weep). Object is an optional element, not an essential one.
Here, the verb is to provide, so simply ask yourself: what was provided? Whatever it was is bound to be the object. Here, it's money.
Whatever else appears in the sentence can't be the object.
To make a (valid) point, I gave an example that shows there are no hard and fast rules, but - in general - a sentence has a verb, a subject, and an object.
He provided him (with) money is a valid sentence: it has a verb (to provide), something which was provided (money) is the object, and someone by whom it was provided (he) is the subject.
For your soprano, ask yourself:
a) What is the verb? Obviously, 'to give' (gave).
b) What was given? Obviously, a standing ovation (the object).
c) Who gave it? Obviously, the audience (the subject).
Your clue is this: The audience gave a standing ovation is a valid sentence. And that is the test to apply: can the three elements you've identified (verb, subject, and object) be combined to make a valid sentence? If they can (without violating the meaning of the entire sentence being considered!) then you have correctly identified them.
The other questions you can ask are:
d) Who was it given to? Answer: the soprano.
e) Why was it given? Answer: for her performance.
Neither of these two additional elements are essential, the sentence is valid if you omit them. Item d, if present, represents the indirect object (but might be omitted, and instead put into an adjacent sentence).
But the object per se (the so-called "direct" object) is always the thing which was given.
Notice how it is all based on the verb. Not all verbs will allow you to ask all these 5 questions, because (for example) not all sentences will have all these 5 parts.
But if you start with the verb, and ask questions a, b and c above, you should usually have enough to identify the key elements of verb, subject and object.
Additionally, the two commonest elements not mentioned here are the adjective (describing the object: telling you its colour or some other property it has; often this is just one word, but sometimes is a phrase); and the adverb (modifying the verb: similar to an adjective, but it refers to the verb, not to the object).