Talk:Orlando di Lasso: Difference between revisions

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 35: Line 35:


I'm pleased that CPDL now has the complete 4vv Magnificats by Lassus! I've made a sortable table at [[Magnificat (Orlando di Lasso)]] and would like to solicit input on disambiguating pagenames of the pattern "Magnificat nnnn toni" (the parodies of course disambiguate themselves). A clunky way might be to adapt existing naming conventions: "Mag. n. toni a vv ([[List of Orlando di Lasso publications|yyyy]])". I'm leaning more to using the numbering of the 1619 publication ''{{NoCo|Iubilus beatæ virginis, hoc est centum Magnificat, 4–8vv, 10vv}}'' with Roman numerals to distinguish it from the other numberings: [[Magnificat primi toni II (Orlando di Lasso)]] would move to [[Magnificat I (Orlando di Lasso)]] or [[Magnificat I, primi toni (Orlando di Lasso)]]; No's 67 and 102 in Erb's edition would be dealt with like Palestrina: [[Magnificat 67 (Mü 71) (Orlando di Lasso)]] and [[Magnificat 102 (Ms. La 341) (Orlando di Lasso)]]. Including the mode in the page name might be useful for some users (picking a Mag. to match the antiphon is the first winnowing step for planning a liturgy), but perhaps the sortable page is all that is needed. [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 05:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm pleased that CPDL now has the complete 4vv Magnificats by Lassus! I've made a sortable table at [[Magnificat (Orlando di Lasso)]] and would like to solicit input on disambiguating pagenames of the pattern "Magnificat nnnn toni" (the parodies of course disambiguate themselves). A clunky way might be to adapt existing naming conventions: "Mag. n. toni a vv ([[List of Orlando di Lasso publications|yyyy]])". I'm leaning more to using the numbering of the 1619 publication ''{{NoCo|Iubilus beatæ virginis, hoc est centum Magnificat, 4–8vv, 10vv}}'' with Roman numerals to distinguish it from the other numberings: [[Magnificat primi toni II (Orlando di Lasso)]] would move to [[Magnificat I (Orlando di Lasso)]] or [[Magnificat I, primi toni (Orlando di Lasso)]]; No's 67 and 102 in Erb's edition would be dealt with like Palestrina: [[Magnificat 67 (Mü 71) (Orlando di Lasso)]] and [[Magnificat 102 (Ms. La 341) (Orlando di Lasso)]]. Including the mode in the page name might be useful for some users (picking a Mag. to match the antiphon is the first winnowing step for planning a liturgy), but perhaps the sortable page is all that is needed. [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 05:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I would also use the 1619 Magnificat collection to tell Magnificats apart. Of the naming schemes you proposed I would choose the Magnificat primi toni I version, since the tone for Magnificats is of primary importance. (No wonder they were printed in sets of 8, as the Magnificat had to accord with the antiphon regardint tone, and the tone of the antiphon was given.) But this naming scheme is insufficient. Because in this way there is no distinction between 4 voice and 5 voice and 6 voice Magnificats, there would be three Magnificat primi toni I. I would therefore propose the version Magnificat primi toni I (1), Magnificat secundi toni I (5) etc. The numbers in parentheses being the numbers in the 1619 collection.
[[User:Imruska|Imruska]] ([[User talk:Imruska|talk]])

Revision as of 14:29, 5 December 2017

Reorganisation

User:Barry Johnston has drawn my attention to an interesting proposal in the CPDL Operation and Implementation issues forum which I mean to study.

My very first impression is that it would be a pity to have to re-invent a labeling system for publications; it's confusing to read:

0380	1570	Viginti quinque sacræ cantiones, 5vv	Nur	Sac	Mot	5	Second enlarged edition of 1562a.

and find that 1562a

0120	1562	Sacrae cantiones quinque vocum	Nur	Sac	Mot	5	Enlarged 2nd edition issued in 1570

has a higher number than 1562b


0110	1562	Il terzo libro delle Muse a quattro voci	Rom	Sec	Mad	4	Publisher A. Barré.

let alone to deal with List of Orlando di Lasso publications. I have to admit though I haven't thought much about how NG chooses the letters in its YYYYl format. Richard Mix (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard! The issue between 1562a and 1562b has been fixed. I chose to use index numbers because I couldn't find one publication numbering system that indexed everything in the table at the bottom of this page. IMSLP appears to use two different systems, one with letter suffixes and another with numbers -- and some known publications aren't listed or given codes. In addition, some of Lasso's works appeared in publications of others. (Forgive my ignorance; what is NG?). If there is a numbering system in place that has everything, I would be happy to use it.
The index numbers I use could be in a separate table, if it is confusing to have them here; but it is necessary to have them somewhere, so that new publications can be inserted.
The numbers (1 - 92) on of Orlando di Lasso publications this page are optional, mostly I needed them to make sure I had the same number of publications on all three pages. These numbers will change as more publications are added, so perhaps they shouldn't appear. I have removed them.
Are there ways these pages could be improved? Thanks for your help. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, NG = New Grove or now the merged Oxford Music Online. I see there's already more than one system there too, distinguished by square and curved brackets:
[25] Sacrae cantiones, 5vv (Nuremberg, 1562, enlarged 2/1570) (RISM 1562a/1570b) [1562/1570h]
I confess I don't know my way around RISM or understand yet why if I search there for RISM 1587k I get A Graun ouverture! Richard Mix (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Another Possibility

As a possible alternative, I tried sorting by language and number of parts. What do you think of this? (This page uses dpl a lot, though). Thanks for your comments. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is wonderful but, if it uses DPL a lot, why shouldn't you think to restore the front composer page automatic like 2,000 others (among 2,200): List of works={{#SortWorks:}} plus {{Whatlinkshere}} and putting that wonderful page just one click away from the top of the standard composer front page? I hate, each morning, having to check if someone has added a new work and has forgotten to add it to the composer manual-list of works. List of problematic pages is here. ;-) Claude (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, Claude! I will implement this later today. — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The Orlando di Lasso page has been reorganized using SortWorks, linking to the pages described above and in the Forum topic. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Magnificats

I'm pleased that CPDL now has the complete 4vv Magnificats by Lassus! I've made a sortable table at Magnificat (Orlando di Lasso) and would like to solicit input on disambiguating pagenames of the pattern "Magnificat nnnn toni" (the parodies of course disambiguate themselves). A clunky way might be to adapt existing naming conventions: "Mag. n. toni a vv (yyyy)". I'm leaning more to using the numbering of the 1619 publication Iubilus beatæ virginis, hoc est centum Magnificat, 4–8vv, 10vv with Roman numerals to distinguish it from the other numberings: Magnificat primi toni II (Orlando di Lasso) would move to Magnificat I (Orlando di Lasso) or Magnificat I, primi toni (Orlando di Lasso); No's 67 and 102 in Erb's edition would be dealt with like Palestrina: Magnificat 67 (Mü 71) (Orlando di Lasso) and Magnificat 102 (Ms. La 341) (Orlando di Lasso). Including the mode in the page name might be useful for some users (picking a Mag. to match the antiphon is the first winnowing step for planning a liturgy), but perhaps the sortable page is all that is needed. Richard Mix (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also use the 1619 Magnificat collection to tell Magnificats apart. Of the naming schemes you proposed I would choose the Magnificat primi toni I version, since the tone for Magnificats is of primary importance. (No wonder they were printed in sets of 8, as the Magnificat had to accord with the antiphon regardint tone, and the tone of the antiphon was given.) But this naming scheme is insufficient. Because in this way there is no distinction between 4 voice and 5 voice and 6 voice Magnificats, there would be three Magnificat primi toni I. I would therefore propose the version Magnificat primi toni I (1), Magnificat secundi toni I (5) etc. The numbers in parentheses being the numbers in the 1619 collection. Imruska (talk)