Hi Andrew, I'm really delighted at the work you've undertaken with Manchicourt!
CPDL editors have resorted to (Nth setting) before, both with a Roman numeral Gaude visceribus II (Anonymous) and occasionally in English In manus tuas (1st setting) (John Sheppard). These are unambiguous because they were copied successively in a unique source (though it's a little confusing there's a Gaude visceribus (Anonymous) but no Gaude visceribus I (Anonymous)). I once preferred Parce mihi Domine (1582) (Orlando di Lasso) & Parce mihi (1565) (Orlando di Lasso), his parents having died at the same time and there being no firm chronology for order of composition; I did toy with (imitative) vs. (homophonic) though, thinking it would be easier for others to guess based on a musical description.
All this is a roundabout way of suggesting that it might just be simpler to move Pater peccavi (2nd setting) (Pierre de Manchicourt) to Pater peccavi a 4 (Pierre de Manchicourt), with Pater peccavi a 5 (Pierre de Manchicourt) the only other setting. ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Richard, thank you for your message! I had thought for a while about how to reference two different settings of the same text, and had a look around at what others had done with similar circumstances. I landed on this format for a couple of reasons: firstly, using the year of first publication would be unhelpful in this instance, since they were both first published in 1546; secondly, while using the voicing as a differentiator (as you suggest) would work here, it doesn’t work for Manchicourt’s other duplicate setting of the same text (Congratulamini) both of which are for 5vv. So I chose this method for consistency across his works. Not ideal, I know … but I hope my reasoning makes sense (as well as showing that there was reasoning!). Cheers, Andrew Fysh (talk) (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- I still have a slew of objections. I think dab by number of voices ought to be the first resort when possible, and consistency within a single composer a very minor consideration. It should be possible to tell from the page name alone which of the two pieces will be found there: is it really known that the 4vv setting is 2nd? Finally, though Shepard is English, it's really friendlier to an international group of users to use I, II & III; I get the willies at the prospect of having to master Russian/Church Slavonic ordinals! :-O Richard Mix (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, And thanks for Missa pro defunctis (Jean Richafort)! You might be interested (if you haven't already read them) in the discussions at Template talk:MassText. There's also need for a Si ambulem page for Lassus & du Caurroy to link to; am I forgetting any others? Richard Mix (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Richard. More pertinently, I believe there is a need for a separate Graduale page: at the moment it’s “buried” in the Introitus page because in most Roman-rite settings it starts with the same text. For completeness, such a page would rightly acknowledge the separate movement in the Requiem mass structure, and include any/all variants (including Si ambulem).—Andrew Fysh (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)