Template talk:MassText: Difference between revisions

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:
On a different note, I think that the Sanctus & Benedictus pages should be combined, given the rarity of separate (stand alone) compositions of either (or both) movements.  What do others think?
On a different note, I think that the Sanctus & Benedictus pages should be combined, given the rarity of separate (stand alone) compositions of either (or both) movements.  What do others think?
}}
}}
:Hi Chuck, I liked your suggestion, in fact the phrase was becoming too long with all those links, especially after I added the "for information" part. The indentation is also fine (that final dot was left over by mistake). I hope you will be able to help with the links to the text pages: do they look better all in Latin or should the ones that have an English translation use it (Tract, Introt, Communion etc.)? Another thing that confused me was that [[wikipedia:Requiem|on wikipedia]] the text for the Tractus is said to be ''[[Absolve Domine (Peter Cornelius)|Absolve, Domine]]'' instead of ''[[Sicut cervus]]'', is it correct? And what about also adding a ''Gradual'' after the ''Kyrie'' (not sure if there are any settings of ''Gradual'' on CPDL). Thanks —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] [{{carlos}} {{mail}}] 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Chuck, I liked your suggestion, in fact the phrase was becoming too long with all those links, especially after I added the "for information" part. The indentation is also fine (that final dot was left over by mistake). I hope you will be able to help with the links to the text pages: do they look better all in Latin or should the ones that have an English translation use it (Tract, Introt, Communion etc.)? Another thing that confused me was that [[wikipedia:Requiem|on wikipedia]] the text for the Tractus is said to be ''[[Absolve Domine (Peter Cornelius)|Absolve, Domine]]'' instead of ''[[Sicut cervus]]'', is it correct? And what about also adding a ''Gradual'' after the ''Kyrie'' (not sure if there are any settings of ''Gradual'' on CPDL). Thanks —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] [{{fullurl:User talk:Carlos}} {{mail}}] 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
{{reply|level=1
{{reply|level=1
|by=[[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]]&nbsp;[[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
|by=[[User:CHGiffen|Chuck]][[User talk:CHGiffen|<sub><small>'''talk'''</small></sub>]]&nbsp;[[User:Charles H. Giffen|Giffen]][[Charles H. Giffen|<sub>'''♫'''</sub>]] 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 26: Line 26:
::Actually, <i>Absolve</i> goes back to the 11th century (hence the rather gloomy text), whereas the more hopeful <i>Sicut cervus</i> is more recent. [[User:Jkelecom|joachim]] 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, <i>Absolve</i> goes back to the 11th century (hence the rather gloomy text), whereas the more hopeful <i>Sicut cervus</i> is more recent. [[User:Jkelecom|joachim]] 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


:::OK, then in the case of CPDL the old ''Tractus'' is the one that probably appears on the masses. Chuck, you know this subject much better than I, please go ahead and implement the suggested changes! —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]]&nbsp;[{{carlos}} {{mail}}] 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::OK, then in the case of CPDL the old ''Tractus'' is the one that probably appears on the masses. Chuck, you know this subject much better than I, please go ahead and implement the suggested changes! —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]]&nbsp;[{{fullurl:User talk:Carlos}} {{mail}}] 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


{{reply|level=3
      {{reply|level=3|color=m
|by=[[User:Pml|Philip Legge]]<sub>[[User_talk:Pml|&#934; talk]]</sub>{{filepath:Email.gif}} 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
|by=[[User:Pml|Philip Legge]]<sub>[[User_talk:Pml|&#934; talk]]</sub> 12:41, 9 May 2009 (AEST)
|text=The standardisation of texts for the Propers of the Requiem mass was an outcome of the Tridentine Council; so roughly after the late 1550s, you no longer see variant texts in polyphonic Requiem masses. There's an early Lassus requiem which is probably one of the last to be written with a variant ''Tractus''. I can see why the ''Graduale'' has been left off the template, since it's a redundant link to the same page as the ''Introitus'', but shouldn't it be there for the sake of completeness?
|text=The standardisation of texts for the Propers of the Requiem mass was an outcome of the Tridentine Council; so roughly after the late 1550s, you no longer see variant texts in polyphonic Requiem masses. There's an early Lassus requiem which is probably one of the last to be written with a variant ''Tractus''. I can see why the ''Graduale'' has been left off the template, since it's a redundant link to the same page as the ''Introitus'', but shouldn't it be there for the sake of completeness?


One might argue for the inclusion of ''Ite, missa est'' in the ordinary form of <nowiki>{{MassText}}</nowiki> – probably in <small>small</small> text – since there are mass settings including this part of the Ordinary. I've in fact just composed such a movement to cap off someone else's mass setting! :)}}
One might argue for the inclusion of ''Ite, missa est'' in the ordinary form of <nowiki>{{MassText}}</nowiki> – probably in <small>small</small> text – since there are mass settings including this part of the Ordinary. I've in fact just composed such a movement to cap off someone else's mass setting! :)
      }}

Revision as of 04:24, 9 May 2009

Possible refinements

 Help 

Of the various text templates, only this template uses "Please refer to.." construct, while the others use "Original text and translations...". Also, instead of ", or" it would be better English language style to make the two clauses separate sentences. I would suggest something along the lines of:

For information, refer to the Mass page. For texts and translations, see the individual pages:

KyrieGloriaCredoSanctus & BenedictusAgnus Dei

and

For information, refer to the Requiem page. For texts and translations, see the individual pages:

IntroitusKyrieTractusSequentiaOffertoriumSanctus & BenedictusAgnus DeiCommunio

I do like the bulletted separations and the two line format. I've indented the individual page listings for comparison, although another possibility might be to center the second line in each case (I think indenting looks better). Putting "For information" and "For texts and translations" first in each sentence is better, both stylistically (parallel construction) and for announcing from the outset the purpose of each sentence.

Many thanks to Carlos for updating this template.

On a different note, I think that the Sanctus & Benedictus pages should be combined, given the rarity of separate (stand alone) compositions of either (or both) movements. What do others think?

Hi Chuck, I liked your suggestion, in fact the phrase was becoming too long with all those links, especially after I added the "for information" part. The indentation is also fine (that final dot was left over by mistake). I hope you will be able to help with the links to the text pages: do they look better all in Latin or should the ones that have an English translation use it (Tract, Introt, Communion etc.)? Another thing that confused me was that on wikipedia the text for the Tractus is said to be Absolve, Domine instead of Sicut cervus, is it correct? And what about also adding a Gradual after the Kyrie (not sure if there are any settings of Gradual on CPDL). Thanks —Carlos Email.gif 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

 Help 

I like using the Latin forms instead of the English forms. I think the text of the Tractus (Tract) was changed at some point, so that one has either the original Sicut cervus or the modern Absolve appearing, depending upon the time period.

Actually, Absolve goes back to the 11th century (hence the rather gloomy text), whereas the more hopeful Sicut cervus is more recent. joachim 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, then in the case of CPDL the old Tractus is the one that probably appears on the masses. Chuck, you know this subject much better than I, please go ahead and implement the suggested changes! —Carlos Email.gif 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Philip LeggeΦ talk 12:41, 9 May 2009 (AEST)

 Help 

The standardisation of texts for the Propers of the Requiem mass was an outcome of the Tridentine Council; so roughly after the late 1550s, you no longer see variant texts in polyphonic Requiem masses. There's an early Lassus requiem which is probably one of the last to be written with a variant Tractus. I can see why the Graduale has been left off the template, since it's a redundant link to the same page as the Introitus, but shouldn't it be there for the sake of completeness?

One might argue for the inclusion of Ite, missa est in the ordinary form of {{MassText}} – probably in small text – since there are mass settings including this part of the Ordinary. I've in fact just composed such a movement to cap off someone else's mass setting! :)