Talk:Evening Service in Latin (Thomas Tallis)

Title and merge

I would guess Magnificat should be merged here. I tried looking in New Grove to see if there was already an accepted title, but the "Latin church music" section is blank in the Oxford Online version. Is it plain in the source that the Mag & Nunc are a pair? Richard Mix (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm now convinced they're one item, as indexed here (no. 62) with the editorial title [Evening service in Latin]. Is this descriptive enough, or would Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in Latin be preferable? Richard Mix (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

If the items are for use in the Anglican Liturgy it is always preferable to refer to them as Mag & Nunc. An "Evening Service" should strictly include the Deus misereatur (psalm 67), yet almost always the solecism of a two canticle set prevails.Cjshawcj (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for your help so far. I'm new to CPDL and have just started uploading some of the editions I made while at University. As far as the Mag and Nunc are concerned they certainly are a pair. Not only are they listed together in the Baldwin Partbooks but there are also musical features that are shared across both the Mag and Nunc.

My only concerns with merging the two pages is that my version is only the Mag and that the other page has a lot of description text so I dont know if my half of the canticles would get lost on the page. I'd be interested to hear what you two think - again thank you for your help, I certainly needed the help of more experienced contributors! Michael Winter (talk) 10:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't studied this particular set, and am unqualified to pass an opinion. FWIW they are an oddity. Being in Latin they have no functional use in the Church of England, post 1549. Were they written before that, when the linkage would have been less specific? (Mag. and Nunc as an indivisible duo, going together like a horse and marriage, does not really start as a general principle until post-Elizabeth I, viz. post 1600). So I have no strong opinions as to whether the two should share a page. I do feel strongly however that, if merged, your excellent edition would be overwhelmed. I do not think that the work page is a suitable place for a prolix lecture on historically informed performance. This is better confined to a footnote within the edition, or to a discussion thread in the forum. The composer should be the focus of the work page, not the editor.

Keep up the good work; it gets easier (or at least less stress-inducing) with regular rehearsal.Cjshawcj (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

CPDL puts the most recent edition at top, so in this case I don't fear it being overwhelmed by the essay-in-lieu-of-edition-notes. Perhaps a collapsible format would be useful here, though often we've had similar explanations included in the pdf edition, with a summary in the Edition notes field. I happen to know Simon has carefully considered origins prior to Baldwin's copy, and hopefully we can expect a new essay one of these days. Latin though is no obstacle to use in Evensong, whereas paired canticles aren't of obvious utility in the Divine Office.

I'm not sure about Deus misereatur: you're right that it's a substitute canticle rather than the psalmody proper to the day, but I can't offhand think of an "Evening Service" that includes it. We do have instance of Evening Canticles in A (George Coombes) overlapping with Deus Misereatur in A (George Coombes). Btw, CPDL's Category:Evening Canticles seems to have been originally intended for paired settings instead of all Canticles, a case in which "Category:Evening Services" might have been less confusing. Richard Mix (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I seems to me that if the pages are merged it should be listed as a 'Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis'? Possibly also add 'in Latin'? There is also a page listed as 'Nunc dimittis a 5' which would also need combining into this group. I also thing that a collapsible option may help Michael Winter (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If I may chip in here, Tallis's Latin Mag and Nunc are certainly a pair, for the reasons pointed out above. Their origin is obscure. A Latin version of the Book of Common Prayer was published in 1560 and some think that Tallis's two settings were written for use with this. However, the book was not popular and was apparently little used, except in the universities. It is often said that a Mag and Nunc pair for the pre-Reformation, Latin services is unthinkable because they were sung at different services (Vespers and Compline respectively). This is mistaken. Although none have survived Mag and Nunc pairs were indeed known before the Reformation. Three examples (by Lambe, Fayrfax and anon.) are listed in one of the choirbooks here (the 'vi bokys off parchemente; they are identified by their first polyphonic verses: 'Et exultavit' and 'Quia viderunt'): https://archive.org/details/musicinmedievalb00harr/page/432/mode/2up. So perhaps Tallis's Mag and Nunc were written for the Latin rite after all. Given the uncertainty, I would avoid the title 'Evening Service', which is very Anglican and may not be appropriate. The best title for the page would be 'Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Latin)'. Personally I would prefer to see all editions of these two canticles on one page, but sorted into sections: one for complete editions (i.e. both canticles), one for editions of the Mag only, and one for the Nunc only. This sort of thing has been done on some other pages. I do very much agree that the work page is no place to publish a critical commentary. Commentaries should be appended to the score. People can always decide for themselves whether to print them or not. Jason Smart (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jason's suggestions seem very good to me and would produce a very neat CPDL page for this work. Michael Winter (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)