ChoralWiki:CPDL support, help, and feedback: Difference between revisions
(debating whether Talk pages should have most recent new topic at top or bottom) |
|||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
{{ItemPost|[[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]] [[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 11:06, 27 July 2008 (PDT)| | {{ItemPost|[[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]] [[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 11:06, 27 July 2008 (PDT)| | ||
Rob... I have no problem at all with using the ItemPost template on talk pages as well as here, as long as one remembers the protocol for talk pages is that new topics are started at the end of the talk page rather than at the top (as on the Bulletin Board). If you seriously object to this, I'll just make a new template with a different name that does pretty much the same thing as ItemPost, for use on talk pages. [[Help talk:Score submission guide|Vaarky's comment]] on another page that ItemPost really helps to differentiate posts is a good one. | Rob... I have no problem at all with using the ItemPost template on talk pages as well as here, as long as one remembers the protocol for talk pages is that new topics are started at the end of the talk page rather than at the top (as on the Bulletin Board). If you seriously object to this, I'll just make a new template with a different name that does pretty much the same thing as ItemPost, for use on talk pages. [[Help talk:Score submission guide|Vaarky's comment]] on another page that ItemPost really helps to differentiate posts is a good one. | ||
}} | |||
{{ItemPost|[[User:Vaarky|Vaarky]] 12:54, 27 July 2008 (PDT)| | |||
I'd like to bring up one more minor point in support of putting more recent topics at the top of Talk pages the way it's done in the user forums. I'd welcome hearing some of the considerations in favor of the other approach too. | |||
By putting the most recently started thread at the top of a talk page, it is easier for people to tell at a glance what topics are new without unnecessary scrolling down (people don't always post descriptive comments, and sometimes save without updating the comments at all. This may be especially useful while broken e-mail verification prevents people from getting any change notification e-mails (not having seen one of those e-mail messages about a watchlist change, I don't know how much difference it makes). | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 19:54, 27 July 2008
CW:SUP redirects here.
Documentation
This page is part of the ChoralWiki:Bulletin board.
Starting a new topic: Click on the [edit] link at the right of the General topics (most recent first) section and type
== <title of new topic> ==
at the beginning of a new line, below the comment line that reads "Start NEW TOPICS immediately below this line, ABOVE (BEFORE) any other topics." Then post your initial message as described below. Thus, a new topic will appear before (above) any other topics, to make for easier browsing. For example, typing
== Looking for works in Quenya ==
will start a new topic, appearing as:
| Looking for works in Quenya | [edit] |
Starting new topics in the Announcements and special topics section should follow the same protocol, but such topics should only be started by CPDL Admins/Sysops.
When adding a message to an existing topic, simply click on the [edit] link at the right of the topic title and post your message below any previously posted message(s) on the topic as follows:
Posting a message (note NEW syntax): Start a new line, and use the Template:ItemPost in the format:
{{ItemPost
|by=<your name & date>
|text=<your message>
}}
The easiest way to sign and date your message is to type four tildes (~~~~) for <your name & date>. Thus, for example, typing
{{ItemPost
|by=~~~~
|text=
Here is a sample message
spread
over
several lines.<br>
It even has more than one paragraph.
}}
resulted in:
| Help | |
|
Here is a sample message
spread
over
several lines. It even has more than one paragraph. | |
N.B. The old syntax for Template:ItemPost still works but is now deprecated in favor of the new syntax.
You can track the activity in this forum by adding this page to your Watchlist - simply click on the watch tab at the top of this page.
Announcements and special topics (most recent first)
Some topics being moved to Operation and implementation issues forum
Use of this forum
| Help | |
|
Use this forum for HELP at Choral Public Domain Library as well as FEEDBACK. It is an alternative to the corresponding forum on the external Bulletin Board. | |
General topics (most recent first)
Suggested Edits to Help System
| Help |
|
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Help:Where_can_I_discuss_CPDL_with_other_users%3F links to http://www.cpdl.org/phpBB2, which gives a NotFound error. There's no link that would allow me to edit it directly. | |
| Help |
|
Additionally, it would be great to include a clickable mail link at http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/form/work.htm where it says people can e-mail the score to a manager if they can't upload it themselves. I know a couple of people who said they have scores for uploading but didn't have the time (one knew how already but the other one didn't and seemed to find the prospect overwhelming--this has held me up too but I'm near to getting over it, as you can tell by the help pages I'm reading. | |
| Help | |
|
Hi Vaarky. Thanks for raising the broken link on that help page - I've updated the info there. As for the add works form, this isn't something that I can edit directly but a brand new form is in the works and should be put into place in the near future. I'll try to remember your suggestion for when that happens. The score submission guide should take you through the whole process quite comprehensively (I wrote most of it!) If you have any problems submitting, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page. BTW, if you want to add an internal link, simply use the page title and two square brackets, eg. [[ChoralWiki:CPDL support, help, and feedback]], rather than [http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/ChoralWiki:CPDL_support%2C_help%2C_and_feedback bulletin borard]. Also, the ItemPost template which we use on these forums should only be used here, not on any other discussion pages, and new discussion should be added at the bottom of the page (but here it's added at the top). Thanks again for the feedback! | |
| Help | |
|
Rob... I have no problem at all with using the ItemPost template on talk pages as well as here, as long as one remembers the protocol for talk pages is that new topics are started at the end of the talk page rather than at the top (as on the Bulletin Board). If you seriously object to this, I'll just make a new template with a different name that does pretty much the same thing as ItemPost, for use on talk pages. Vaarky's comment on another page that ItemPost really helps to differentiate posts is a good one. | |
| Help |
|
I'd like to bring up one more minor point in support of putting more recent topics at the top of Talk pages the way it's done in the user forums. I'd welcome hearing some of the considerations in favor of the other approach too. By putting the most recently started thread at the top of a talk page, it is easier for people to tell at a glance what topics are new without unnecessary scrolling down (people don't always post descriptive comments, and sometimes save without updating the comments at all. This may be especially useful while broken e-mail verification prevents people from getting any change notification e-mails (not having seen one of those e-mail messages about a watchlist change, I don't know how much difference it makes). | |
Indicating Macaronic Text
| Help |
|
In te Domine speravi (Josquin Des Prez) has macaronic text. This piece raises several questions and I posted some discussion on the talk page for that score. One of the questions is not score-specific: I didn't see a way to indicate macaronic text on the help page about templates for text/translations; if one is created, should there be some way to indicate what the two or more languages are and what icon/flag should be used? Since this is a more general question, is this the best place to discuss it? If so, I or someone else should add a pointer to the talk page for that piece pointing here. | |
| Help |
|
Vaarky, Template:Text now accepts up to 3 different languages (the help page hasn't been updated yet). Please check the template page for instructions on the proper syntax in each case. | |
How should we handle entries for the second editor
| Help |
|
The work "Circumdederunt me (Cristóbal de Morales)" recently submitted by Sabine Cassola has two editors, one is not listed as a "CPDL Contributer", but is listed in a footnote as Sabine says in her email to me: Hi John, Would you be so kind to post these pieces for me on CPDL. Some of them are a coproduction with my colleague Dr. Ulrich Bartels (UB) as you can see at the bottom of some of these pages. If it is not possible for you to post the material, please, let me know Best wishes Sabine How shall we add a second editor accreditation to the works page ? | |
| Help | |
|
I suggest that this situation should be handled in the same was as other editions which have more than one editor - simply change "Editor" to "Editors" and list both individuals' names with separate links to their respective user pages (create new ones if necessary). Eg: :'''Editors:''' [[User:Sabine Cassola|Sabine Cassola]] and [[User:Ulrich Bartels|Ulrich Bartels]] Hope that helps. | |
| Help |
|
John, per Rob's request, Template:Editor has been extended to accept up to 3 editor names. Check the template page for instructions on the proper syntax in each case. | |
Slow upload times
| Help |
|
I'm recently uploading a lot of scores, and it takes too much time for the pages to open or reload.(on average 10-20 seconds). What can I do about it? (my location is Slovenia and I have 1.5Mbit/384Kbit line).
Is there a way to to mass-upload pdf, and midi files?
| |
| Help | |
|
I think the problem is probably with the server which hosts CPDL. I'm in the USA and have DSL (albeit from a large provider whose service has been spotty at times), and I'm continually experiencing long times for pages to load, edits to be processed, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of any method for mass uploading PDF and MIDI files. | |
| Help | |
|
Same problem here. I noticed things get worse when it's daytime in the U.S., when I have to wait sometimes up to 1 min to have pages loaded (as is right now). What I do is to avoid doing my edits during this period. I prefer to come here at night (in Brazil), when it's midnight in the U.S. Hope it helps. | |
| Help | |
|
If anyone's having problems uploading files, feel free to email them to me and I'll upload them on your behalf. | |
Ability to post more than one pdf, as well as MusicXML file?
| Help |
|
I have posted a version of America (My Country Tis of Thee). To make life easier for all, I'd like to post a MusicXML version I have in addition to the original (and likely best) version from Sibelius 4. Is there any way to accomplish this? In addition, I would like to have two pdf versions: one that is a pdf of the Sibelius file (cleanest version) as well as a scan of the 1917 original. In the upload page, in addition to not allowing the XML filetype, there seems to be room to add only one pdf. Any help is appreciated! | |
| Help |
|
Hi CPDL Pioneer Mduiuc - I've added place-holders for the 2nd PDF and the XML source files - edit the works page and put in the proper links. Use file specifiers which look like: http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/d/d2/01_America.pdf which you get by left-clicking on the file specifier. Try the steps given below to demonstrate: Type in the URL: http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Image:01_America.pdf Right-Click on the blue link: 01_America.pdf Select "Properties" Copy the file designation from the box which appears. (Highlight - then cut-n-paste) (It will be: http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/d/d2/01_America.pdf) Use this info in the works page to specify your uploaded file. --- Good Luck ! --- | |
Naming convention for Composer+Arranger scores
| Help | |
|
I'm in doubt about this subject: When we have a score that is an arrangement of a popular music, should its title be Music name (Composer name) or Music name (Arranger name) or still Music name (arr. Arranger name), or both names? There's also an specific case of Gregorian chant that has been harmonized. I named it Chant name (Gregorian chant) and informed about the harmonization inside, is that ok? | |
| Help | |
|
Hi Carlos. I'll try to answer as best I can though I expect my answer will at least be partly influenced by my personal opinion on the matter. I believe that the naming convention for pages should always be Title, Op. n, No. n (Composer Name). If there is no composer then the following should apply: "Anonymous" for works where we don't know the composer's name or "Traditional" where it is likely that the tune has been passed down orally so that the original composer isn't known. But that standard has been adopted fairly loosly... I think you're right to list the arranger on the score page. You're definitely right to list the chants as Chant name (Gregorian chant). I think the only exception should be if the arrangement is so well known that there are many editions of it contributed to CPDL, in which case it may warrant its own page (I can't think of an example). I believe that all arrangements of a work should be listed on the same score page for convenience to the user. However, Chuck disagrees with me and we haven't really come to an agreement on the matter (I'm afraid I can't find the discussion...) Hope that helps. | |
| Help | |
|
I don't exactly disagree with Rob on the matter. I just have the feeling that a "major" arrangement (ie. one which differs significantly enough from the original to warrant being a separate "composition") should have its own page, with the "composer/arranger" listed as the composer and a link placed on the page of the original source (assuming that source is represented at CPDL). In the case of "new" hymn settings (of old hymnns or hymn tunes) this is already what we do. We also do it for anthems/motets that are based upon earlier works (at least, I think we do). But in the case of an arrangement (say, for SSAA or TTBB) of a choral work originally scored for different voicing (say, SATB) in which there is little rewriting other than simple transposition of parts, the arrangement should be (and usually is) incorporated on the original work page and marked as a transposition or arrangement in the Edition notes. As an example of an arrangement that should (I believe) and does have its own page is the Joseph G. Stephens arrangement of Coventry Carol (Traditional) (which actually lists at least two "arrangements"). | |
| Help | |
|
Rob and Chuck, thanks for your opinions on this fuzzy subject, your personal experiences can help a lot. If I understood well what you both said, then this score could be renamed to O voso galo, comadre (Traditional) without much controversy: inside we could have Miguel Groba's own arrangement (or harmonization) and Adrian Cuello's adaptation for female choir of Groba's work. Agree? With respect to Coventry Carol, I decided to have a look at all the available scores to see if I had got right what Chuck had said, but I ended up more confused: Joseph Stephens' arrangement is definitelly diferent from the traditional STB setting by Thomas Sharp (which has two versions, one hosted at CPDL and one at Christmas Songbook). BUT, there are also two other SATB versions (one by Martin Fallas Shaw, at Christmas Carol Music and the other by Walford Davies at Christmas Songbook) which are significantly different, both harmonically and rhythmically, from the traditional one. If we follow Chuck's advice, shouldn't then their compositions be also in separate pages? On the other hand, if they are to stay where they are, then I think Joseph Stephens' arrangement should also join them on the same page. :) | |
| Help | |
|
Hi Carlos. I was aware of the other versions of Coventry Carol lurking on those external websites - and I'm not sure if it was ever intended that they be posted at CPDL. By the way, it is now (aomost) universally agreed that the F/F# clash in old scores is surely a copyist's mistake and that the offending F (natural) should, in fact, be a D. | |
PDF File protected on Williams Server
| Help |
|
If you try to access the PDF file for the following work: You get an error: Forbidden You don't have permission to access /cpdl/sheet/sta-1171.pdf on this server. Any idea why ? It seems to be a general problem with ALL of the files stored on Williams server ... Apache/2.2.3 (Ubuntu) Server at wso.williams.edu Port 80 | |
| Help | |
|
I've left a message for Raf (the Manager of CPDL) and hope it will be resolved soon. There have been occasional problems like this with the Williams server in the past which have generally proved to be only temporary. | |
| Help |
|
Seems to be fixed now ... | |
Diacritics (e.g., ç) not accommodated in search & alphabetization features?
| Help |
|
After uploading a piece entitled "Utěšený nám den nastal," I noticed that a search for "Uteseny" (sans diacritics) does not return any results. Does this also mean that pieces whose titles begin with diacritical characters (É, Ç, Ü, etc.) are not found under any letter of the alphabet in templates that auto-categorize alphabetically? Is there a wiki feature that can be enabled in order to allow diacritical characters (e.g, ñ) to be dynamically interpreted as their "essential" (e.g., n) selves for search and alphabetization purposes? Or should the editor remove all diacritics from a title before posting? Sorry for the rehash if this has been addressed previously. | |
| Help | |
|
I don't know about extending the search facility of the Wiki, but at very least, I think creating a page Uteseny nam den nastal (without the diacritics) which redirects to the page in question might be one kludge. At least it's worth giving it a try. -- Chucktalk Giffen♫ 13:39, 11 April 2008 (PDT) | |
| Help |
|
Thanks, Chuck. So...how do I make that redirect happen, now? | |
| Help | |
|
I just made the redirect for you. In general, to make a redirect type: #redirect [[<page name>]] in the edit box. | |
| Help |
|
Great, thanks. I see that searching cpdl for "Uteseny nam den nastal" now brings up the redirect result. However, searching for "Uteseny" (or any other subelement(s) of the title sans diacritics) still brings up zero results. Is this due to the way that the titles of redirect pages are indexed in the search feature? For comparison, a search for "Utěšený" brings up the appropriate result. | |
| Help | |
|
I think that redirects must be ignored by the search part of the "search and go" aspect of the Wiki search (I don't like it), but as a work-around, I've put "|Uteseny nam den nastal (Anonymous)" as a sort key for the categories on the page in question, and now a search on "Uteseny" points to the right page. It is probably best to insert sort keys which suppress the diacritics in other situations as well ... yet another minor (or major) headache! But many thanks for pointing the problems out. | |
| Help |
|
Got it, thanks. I'll keep that strategy in mind for the future... | |
| Help | |
|
I've fixed that: I had a "pipe" (just before just before "Uteseny") which has to be enclosed inside a "nowiki" group to prevent it from being (mis)interpreted by the template ItemPost. Sorry about that! | |
CPDL number
| Help |
|
I was wondering, is there any kind of CPDL # generator? How does one know what number to use next? In case this is a manual task, may I suggest a workaround that might easy the work: the admins could create a template {{CPDL#|1234}}, that when used would put the score in a category like [[Category:Works by CPDL number]] that would list the scores by (descending?) CPDL number. Then when we needed to know what number was last used, we only needed to consult this category page and look for the last (or first, if descending) work. | |
| Help | |
|
Hi Carlos. A new CPDL number is generated every time the add works form is run. Simply goto ChoralWiki:Add Music then click on "Add Choral Work, or New Edition". Then if you wish to create a new page, fill in the boxes. If you just want a new CPDL no. click "Add works data" at the bottom of the form. Regards --Bobnotts talk 02:10, 7 April 2008 (PDT) | |
| Help |
|
Good to know that! Usually I prefer to create a new page from scratch using another similar composition (already formatted with all necessary templates) as a basis. Then I will use your second option to only generate the CPDL no. Thanks, Bob! | |
| Help |
|
For anyone who's interested - mainly as a personal learning exercise using various scripting tools, I'm working on an automatically generated list of CPDL scores by CPDL no. (and vice versa), which will hopefully prove useful once I resolve my few remaining problems (mostly with diacritics/character sets). It'll take a while to extract the data as the process does generate traffic against the CPDL website (I have to load 2 web pages for each CPDL no., a search and an export) so I'll want to do it in pretty small stages. Hope this makes sense. | |
| Help | |
|
That sounds great, Mandy. I fear you'll find a few gaps! Would this process be able to be integrated into the current verified editions pages? If the process puts some strain on the server, do make sure that you run it in manageable steps otherwise the whole site could go down! | |
| Help |
|
Absolutely, Robert - the data can be formatted however it is most useful, once I have collected it. In fact I am having to use Verified Editions as an initial source for numbers 1-999, as CPDL Search doesn't index such low numbers (nothing's ever simple, is it). I'll fill in any remaining gaps in 1-999 via Google (which is actually a much more effective tool for this purpose than CPDL Search, because the latter can't cope with phrases). I'm doing the extract 100 entries at a time with reasonable gaps in between (and sticking mostly to early morning UK time). I'll keep you posted. | |
| Help | |
|
I, too, have been working on some CPDL number and related things, and you can see some of what I've done at Category:CPDL numbers and also at ChoralWiki:Sandbox (unfortunately, I've discovered that the magic word __HIDDENCAT__ doesn't seem to be a part of our version). I'll get back to all of you later. Added later: Okay, the DPL mechanism works in the wrong way (I was out in left field on that one), so I'm disimplementing Template:Work (changing it immediately to have no effect) and will remove it from the pages that contain it. I plan also to shorten the Template:CPDL_number just to Template:CPDL (CPDL number is too much to type) and extending the syntax to make it usable for numbers with fewer than 5 digits (albeit, 4 digits or fewer is a wee bit inconvenient), so that the sorting facility still remains. The worst part of it is that it is necessary to "create" each "Category:CPDL xxxxx" (and they really should be hidden). Mandy, I'm really interested to know just what your scheme is. | |
| Help |
|
Greetings, just wanted to say that I haven't, despite appearances, given up - I just hadn't quite finished my work when lots of other things started to get in the way - I hope to make some progress this weekend. | |
Template:Composer - being used and misused?
| Help | |
|
I've recently come across instances of Template:Composer being used on score pages which most likely do not conform to the intent of Philip Legge, whose version of the template been in effect from 2006 April 9 until today. Just why this is happening, I'm not sure, since the template does not appear in Category:Templates. Perhaps users, having seen it used on score pages of works by Byrd, Monteverdi or others, have concluded that this is the "best" or "proper" way to specify the composer field on a score page. To see what the problem I'm addressing is, consider the following instances of the use of this template: Typing {{Composer|William Byrd}} on a score page does two things: (1) it produces the line Composer: William Byrd (followed by a line-break) and (2) it adds the Category:William Byrd compositions to the page, and the resulting category provides an alphabetical-by-title listing of all the pages in that category. This is all well and good for Mr. Byrd, whose works on the composer page are (a) plenteous and (b) (more importantly) split into three groups (Sacred in Latin, Sacred in English, and Secular). However, only 81 (fewer than 1/3) of Mr. Byrd's score pages have been categorized this way. Mr. Palestrina does not fare so well: Category:Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina compositions lists just one score page! But, at least the category page has been "created" (ie. it has descriptive text, so that the link to the category appears in blue). It is the same for Category:Johannes Brahms compositions - just one page in the category. Alas, for Orlando di Lasso, whose composer page lists many scores grouped into Sacred and Secular works, the Category:Orlando di Lasso compositions contains just 2 entries, and the category hasn't even been created (since the link to the category appears in red)! Unfortunately, there are numerous instances of a composer's compositions category appearing in red (because of the use of Template:Composer and, more often than not, listing very few (usually only one) entry. Only the ("uncreated") Category:Clément Janequin compositions lists more than ten entries (19). Indeed, only 5 compositions categories have been created, and only two of these (Monteverdi and Byrd) have a reasonably large number of entries). What is wrong here, and what should be done about it?
| |
| Help | |
|
As no doubt some have noticed, it is mainly I who have been adding this particular template to score pages in my usual day to day edits. First of all, allow me to apologise for not discussing and documenting this template appropriately (it's something that I've been meaning to do but not got round to... not a good excuse but there you go). The way that I see it, there are two very good reasons for including this template on all score pages.
So much easier to make a powerful search with the DPL functionality than browsing. At the moment, CPDL uses the wiki base but the information in CPDL has not been integrated to use the wiki effectively. Anyway, to reply to your specific points, Chuck:
As to the issue of score pages being categorised with non-existant categories, this is already what's happening with Template:NewWork. Categorising with non-existant categories doesn't do any harm and if, in the future, the category is to be created (when someone takes on a composer's score pages as I suggested earlier) then there's one (or several) less pages to edit. | |
| Help | |
|
Thanks, Rob, for explaining your rationale in the context of DPLs. I guess that's a rather wider purpose than what I perceive was Philip's original purpose. I had thought you were simply using fewer keystrokes through the template (which would make sense, too)! I would, however, suggest that whenever a composer's composition category is created, that category should itself be categorized in a category, something like Category:Compositions by composer or simply Category:Compositions. In true Wiki philosophy and practice, nearly every page, whether article or category should itself be categorized, and these compositions categories will be very numerous when and if your vision for them is realized. | |
| Help |
|
Hi guys! Like most of the templates I've tinkered with, {{Composer|composer name}} was designed to be simple to apply but to be extensible to do something useful, and the immediate usage I saw was automatic generation of a works category. I'm sorry the template hasn't been properly documented, but the erasure of four months work of 2007 resulted in the loss of a lot of documentation as well as several new templates and additional features added to others. I suppose one handy extension to the composer template would be to add arbitrary sort fields for DPL, but I'm not sure whether this would break the existing instances of the template. | |
| Help | |
|
I have to say I don't really understand half of what you said, Philip, but it sounds rather impressive! I'll get to work on documentation and categorising the pages when I return after a short break. | |
Art Songs category not working sorting by name of work
| Help |
|
All the new Parry Art songs are showing up under "A" in Art Song category. Any idea why ? | |
| Help | |
|
My bad, I fixed the Template:Cat | |
List of current CPDL problems (moved)
Moved to: Operation and implementation issues
Score count for March 1 - Same as Feb ?
| Help |
|
I'm waiting to the 10,000 score mark for CPDL (party time?) - but this month the number of scores stayed frozen at 9081 ! The composer count stayed the same also... Is the counting mechanism faulty, or weren't these figures updated ? - just curious - | |
| Help | |
|
Those numbers on the Main page are not automatically updated, but instead must be updated by hand by an Admin/Sysop (see Template:CPDL statistics). I have made a point of updating the statistics at the beginning of every month since the restoration after the crash, and prior to that numerous times as well, at least when I noted that they had not been updated (Raf is the only other person to do an update). Fortunately, Raf had commented in a very old phpBB message to Admins about how to do it. On January 4, I posted updating instructions with the CPDL statistics template. Good thing I did, because Raf's original phpBB message has since been lost, due to recent pruning of the phpBB. BTW, I just checked the count, and we are only now up to 9101 score pages, so there is still a long way to go before 10000 score pages. One should realize that the count is score pages, not scores, and that the number of score pages goes down whenever pages are merged or combined. Also, the score count at the beginning of February was 8970, at the beginning of March 9081, for a difference of 111 score pages. | |
Naming: Unaccompanied vs. A cappella
| Help |
|
While I really wonder whether it's worth mentioning, I'm curious if anyone else cares that the term "a cappella", because of its literal meaning, would not apply to many of the more modern styles of unaccompanied choral music. Might a catagory name change be considered? | |
| Help | |
|
I suppose that a cappella (Italian "at chapel' or Latin "from the chapel/choir") is right up there with the contemporary meanings of other secular-world interpretations of terms with religious or sacred connotations, such as Christmas, Halloween, Shrove Tuesday (a.k.a. Fasching, Carnival), Anthem (originally a song set to a religious English text, but now co-opted to mean also a song of celebration for a particular group of people, as in "National anthem"). I think that, nowadays, we generally take the term to mean vocal/choral music for which no additional specifically instrumental parts are composed. And, as such, a cappella is now throrougly ingrained, at least into the English speaking world. Of course, it is quite likely that much a cappella music was and is, in fact, performed at times with instrumental doubling (or substituting) some parts. To use the them "unaccompanied" in place of a cappella would tend to exclude what this latter type of long historical performance practice has been. In light of this generally accepted convention/definition, it does not seem to me that a change in category name is warranted. | |
| Help | |
|
I agree, Chuck. The term a cappella has evolved way past its original meaning so that I believe the current categorisation is appropriate. | |
| Help |
|
Okay, I admit that I like a cappella better due to its sophisticated ring, and now I'll now admit what prompted the question. The American Choral Directors Association stylebook for the Choral Joural prefers unaccompanied to a cappella? It's probably a question for them, but I posed it here to get "outsider" perspective. I'm not really looking for the actual answer but rather ideas. Perhaps by posing this question, I'm necessitating a move to a different area of the forum. If so, please move it as such. | |
I've reposted a missing score (moved)
Moved to: Sheet music requests and questions
Should we consider setting up a mirror site? (moved)
Moved to: Operation and implementation issues
Can the CPDL Catalogs be brought up to date ?
| Help |
|
Can the CPDL Catalogs be brought up to date - they are over 2 years old now. | |
| Help |
|
I think the answer of whether this can be done depends once again on Raf Ornes' time availability - he is still the only recipient of the email list that documents the submission of new works; if anyone else were to attempt it, that person would have a much harder time tracking down every addition to the CPDL since 2006. | |
Can we add a category for "Art Songs" ?
| Help |
|
Can we add a category suitable to categorize Parry's "English Lyrics" ? I would suggest "Art Songs" "Lieder" is there, but these are in English ... | |
| Help | |
|
Hi John. A while ago, I created the Category:Art songs and have it already listed on the ChoralWiki:Music Subcategories page. | |
| Help |
|
Thanks, Chuck. Must have been using a capital S in songs... | |