User talk:Joewalker04
Bienvenue sur ChoralWiki ! Nous espérons que vous contribuerez en quantité et en qualité. Vous désirerez sans doute lire les pages d’aide. Encore une fois, bienvenue et amusez-vous bien ! Claude T (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Benedictus Deus Israel
Welcome, and thanks for using the edit summary: this helps a lot in working collaboratively. I left the red link Lauds as a deliberate prod for someone to create an internal CPDL link, and it's a loss, I think, to omit the citation to Luke (this is a standard feature on text pages). But speaking of edit summaries, I see some big deletions from text pages like Tristis est anima mea. Should I be looking these over? Richard Mix (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Richard; I should like to echo your concern. Mr Walker, over several pages appears to be making significant changes, often with the apparent intent of removing all Anglican content c.f. Psalm 51. This isn't helpful when he seems incapable of distinguishing text from translation, and when significant changes by him are declared as marginal. Just sayin' Cjshawcj (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Richard and Christopher, thanks for reaching out and sorry for the confusion. I see your points in regards to intentionally leaving red links and text source citations, and I will revert those changes I have made. Additionally, I want to apologize for the text/translation issue. Before, I thought that this terminology (regarding sacred music) referred to Biblical text (Hebrew, Greek, some Latin, etc.) and Bible translations; but I understand now (if I'm correct) that the terminology refers to the original text and subsequent translations of the music (or "lyrics," as it were), not the Bible. Concerning removals of some texts/translations (Anglican was mentioned), this was symptomatic of the aforementioned mistake about the meanings of "text" versus "translation" (That is, for some settings of text from the Latin Vulgate, I thought it only fitting to have the Douay English translation, since only that one presents as a translation of the Vulgate text.). Sorry again for all the confusion. I'll be more careful editing pages in the future. Joewalker04 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Jejune accents
Might I observe that I find your addition of accents to Latin text distressing: they are no part of the language and serve only as an unsightly prop for the illiterate.Cjshawcj (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Extraneous to the text as text, but there might be a case that they are part of the musical notation as edited by Solesmes. I understand them to be for the benefit of francophones, hardly illiterate but perhaps unacquainted with the Italian nuances of pronunciation. Richard Mix (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe it appropriate that minority proprietary systems should evidence the majority usage. I would not dream of imposing Anglican pointing on the text of all the psalms, nor would I evidence the works of Palestrina in tonic sol-fa or, terribile dictu, shapenotes. 11:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Including accents in Latin text is not a "proprietary system," and it is hardly comparable with tonic sol-fa or shape notes. On the contrary, I would argue that they aid in making performance of Latin works, many of which tend to be accentual, a bit more intuitive.Joewalker04 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's still a question though whether performance markings are useful on a textpage, though. I can imagine it being handy if one is pasting text into one's edition (and even more convenient if hyphenated!), but many people use textpage text to paste into concert programs, where it's extra work to deaccent them. Richard Mix (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I've been adding them with the intention of helping editors, but I didn't consider non-editors using them and then having to deaccent the text. I suppose the proper accents can always be found elsewhere if someone wants to add them to his edition. Should I remove them? Joewalker04 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's still a question though whether performance markings are useful on a textpage, though. I can imagine it being handy if one is pasting text into one's edition (and even more convenient if hyphenated!), but many people use textpage text to paste into concert programs, where it's extra work to deaccent them. Richard Mix (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
- Including accents in Latin text is not a "proprietary system," and it is hardly comparable with tonic sol-fa or shape notes. On the contrary, I would argue that they aid in making performance of Latin works, many of which tend to be accentual, a bit more intuitive.Joewalker04 (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe it appropriate that minority proprietary systems should evidence the majority usage. I would not dream of imposing Anglican pointing on the text of all the psalms, nor would I evidence the works of Palestrina in tonic sol-fa or, terribile dictu, shapenotes. 11:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Omnes amici mei (Jacob Handl)
Hi Joseph. Many thanks for your contributions. I just wanted to flag your deletion of the text and translation on this page. As with many of Handl's motets, the texts are often slight variants of what we now consider established norms. For this reason, I have chosen to include the full text and a translation of all motets, unless they are clearly an unaltered version of an existing text (e.g. Ave verum corpus). It is also helpful to see the full text on a work page for those making orders of service, concert programmes, etc. especially if it differs slightly from the related text page. I have reverted your edit which deleted the full text and translation, but included a short passage noting that the respond varies from how the text Omnes amici mei usually goes; indeed, the motet is not structured in the style of a respond, being through-composed. Droopop (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- Drew, sorry about that. I've been trying recently to consolidate the text pages, particularly for Tenebrae responsories and Office of the Dead, and this issue of text variation is common among those categories. I think your decision to include the full text/translation on all the the work pages with variant texts is a good solution. I would suggest, however, that the variants not be included in the text/translation section on the main text page, since it often ends up looking messy and potentially confusing the more variants there are; this is why I removed the variant text from Omnes amici mei. Instead, would it suffice to point out works with variant texts in the "Notes on selected settings" section? Joewalker04 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I take your point about messy text pages. I guess it's a question of extent. If a work has one or two variants that occur frequently throughout the repertoire then it's more efficient to have that included on the text page for quick reference in "Notes on selected settings", (e.g. 'Variant 1'). If there are minor differences unique to one work then your solution of just putting it on the work page makes sense to me. Either way, try to avoid deleting content from work pages without good reason. Droopop (talk) 12:24, 6 August 2025 (UTC)