Talk:Missa pro defunctis (Gregorian chant)
I suggest this page be renamed to fit a somewhat more widely used name, such as missa pro defunctis. The Spanish page title needlessly complicates matters for people looking for scores, and there really isn't anything even remotely Spanish about it. joachim 18:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
from 'Talk:Gregoriaanse rouwmis (Gregorian chant)'
This is a (very) selective edition of the requiem mass in its plainchant setting (as the Dutch title indicates). I think there ought to be a redirect. joachim 13:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll start merging. Richard Mix 22:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC) I see we have the same 4 movements on one page now, but communion and sequence are still scattered and the offertory Domine Jesu Christe seem to be missing. Richard Mix 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
- Two more movements are now on the page but the third is still missing. Claude 12:25, 29 June 2011 (CDT)
from 'Talk:Dies Irae (Gregorian chant)'
- I have some questions concerning this piece.
- Measures 7 and 10 are identical except for the F sharp in bar 7. Should they not be the same? The F natural in bar 10 breaks the row of perfect fourths.
- it should be F# - no matter how modal plainchant is, the diabolus in musica is definitely out. joachim
- In bar 12, which otherwise corresponds to bar 9 and 30, there are some perfect fifths. Is that correct?
- I don't see any fifths in bar 12, I'm afraid. joachim
- Finally, are measures 19-27 and 31-40 meant to be sung by the women only?
- Male/Female voicing category?
- I have the impression that CPDL is missing a category for 2-part works divided between female and male voices. How to classify such works? —Carlos 20:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alternatim? --Vaarky 07:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Couldn't you just put ST as voicing? Or SB, for that matter? Since the source file is available, it's relatively easy to transpose the piece if one finds the tessitura uncomfortable for one's choir. Besides, pitch doesn't really matter in plainchant anyway. joachim 09:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Joachim, I'm not thinking of plainchant exclusivelly. In my choral life I've seen a number of works written for unison male/female voices, so I think the ST or SB approach woundn't be proper in these cases.
- Vaarky, I didn't know the term Alternatim, but it seems to be associated with liturgical music only, and doesn't seem to bring the sense of male/female contraposition.
- I suggest the creation of new "gender/age" categories for "Male unison", "Female unison", "Male/Female unison" and "Children unison" to classify this and other similar works. Do these names sound good? —Carlos 13:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alternatim came out of the liturgical tradition but the term is quite commonly used for the technique even when applied to modern and non-liturgical music. This page defines it independently of the religious setting, for example. But if enough people are not familiar with the term, it's probably suboptimal as an index term for CPDL. -- Vaarky 19:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have no objection to either solution, but I'm afraid I still think an extra category is superfluous. If a piece is truly unison, then gender doesn't really come into it, since a simple transposition could make it suitable for all sexes and ages. If, as is the case here, certain verses are meant for men's and other for women's voices (the piece therefore being not quite unison) , I don't see why an ST, AB or similar indication would not suffice. As far as altnernatim is concerned: I,too, had the first impression of it being limited to a dialogue between plainchant and polyphony (or organ), but if a reliable source widens the concept, why not. Cordially, joachim 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Correct text in verse 16?
- Posted by: Ingebjør 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! I'd like to comment on the text. According to  the text is
"Liber scriptus proferetur, In quo totum continetur (...)"
"Confutatis maledictis, flammis acribus addictis, voca me cum benedictis"
"(...) Qua resurget ex favilla, Judicandus homo reus (...)"
Thank you for Dies irae!
Reply by: Vaarky 02:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I asked Paul Pascal, Professor Emeritus of Classics, University of Washington, about the text you cite above. He confirmed that the version in the Dies Irae text page is correct, and the version you quote from the score is erroneous. Thanks for spotting this.