User talk:Cjshawcj

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Tallis Dorian

As far as I'm aware, "short service" and "Dorian" are both 19th or 20th century titles, and both remain in use. There is an older title, the First Service (which, at a guess, was coined by John Barnard), but I can't say that I've heard it used. "Short service in the Dorian mode" seems reasonably unambiguous. Adrian M. Wall (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Webbe You gave me your heart

Possible errors:
Bar 20: Alto - last note should be B, not A
Bars 23-24: Tenor I - Missing slur.

Bar 14: Tenor I - G natural rather than G sharp feels more appropriate to me.
Jamesgibb (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

4 editor-induced errors (two bar zeros, and all subsequent bars misnumbered) corrected. Amended pdf will be posted soon. Thanks for the observation. Cjshawcj (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


You may have noticed that we have been making significant changes to the composer pages over the last few weeks. The main purpose is to automate, as much as possible, the process of uploading editions to the site. We have eliminated the file information from the composer pages because we have found from experience that when people upload new versions of files the are often unaware that the files on the composer page need to be adjusted manually. We were therefore ending up with a mismatch between the files. Another reason is that people need to be aware of any copyright restrictions before they download a file and these can olonly be found on the works page.

One side benefit is that the new system picks up works which have not been added to the composer page. (My record so far is 21, including, embarrassingly, one of my own!) It will also identify works where the composer is identified as arranger; any work in the list which has another composer's name is an arrangement.

It becomes less useful on the more complicated composer pages, particularly if the works are arranged by opus number, or by publication, but that covers considerably less than 10% of composers.

As one of the major contributors to the site, it would be very useful to have your feedback, whether positive or negative, on the changes.Jamesgibb (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Cantate Domino (Hieronymus Praetorius)

Great to see the new additions! I was wondering, could this be the Cantate Domino, No. 98 in Florilegium Portense I 1618 as well as the one published in Canticum B. Mariae Virginis (and other motets), 1622? Richard Mix (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes to Canticum, dunno about Florilegium. I have several Florilegium links to make soon (e.g. new Erbach's, and will check then. Cjshawcj (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

On precipitate tinkering

While it is unfortunate that Claude has (quite inadvertently) made edits to some of your posts that you still had edits of your own you wished to make (and then your edits were blocked, actually you should have had a request to merge your edits with the previous ones), it seems that you have really been rather unkind to Claude. I can assure you that Claude is extremely conscientious with his gargantuan efforts here at CPDL. He has made more edits than anyone by a factor of about two. And he works arduously to keep up with the current submissions of scores, so as to prevent a growing backlog. I see that Claude himself has made an apology when you posted on his talk page about this. But it seems to me that you might apologise as well, if only to clear the air.

In the meantime, may I suggest (actually, I am requesting and strongly urging) that you post the Template:InUse at the top of any page for which you are making sequential edits so that this sort of thing does not happen again. Simply put {{InUse}} at the top of any such page, and please remove it with you are finished with the editing sequence. You are not the only one for whom this getting blitzed by someone else's edits has occurred (it's happened to me numerous times). Now you know that there is a simple remedy.

Regards, Chucktalk Giffen 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Christopher and I have discussed this situation and I feel that the following points need to be made.

1) The addition of the 'InUse' template is possible only after initial submission of the 'Add New Work' form, and therefore there is a clear opportunity for changes to be made by another user between that point and the addition of the template. The advised mechanism is only going to work seamlessly if the template is added automatically to the page generated by 'Add New Work' (maybe there could be a form option on this point).

2) The parallel edits introduce frustration largely because they don't appear to be contributing anything material, being typically limited to the addition/removal of spaces and carriage returns, typically within 10 minutes of posting. These changes make the work page fit a 'perfect' standard for a CPDL work page, but do not seem to me to affect the page's usability by choir librarians etc.; also, there is (as far as I can see) no documentation anywhere of this 'perfect' standard; plus, even the 'Add New Work' form does not, as presumably it could, enforce the 'perfect' standard. I do, therefore, feel that a lot of the present disagreement could be avoided at source.

3) As an interested observer and professional data person, I am honestly concerned that a lot of time is being spent trying to enforce a 'database' level of consistency and accuracy on a platform (i.e. MediaWiki) that isn't intended for it. I would personally love to see complete consistency across the site, but it is very clear to me that many other editors like to put a personal stamp on pages: major reformatting of composer pages, omitting of voicings, etc. It feels to us as if such activities are considered fine, while our inadvertent addition of superfluous carriage returns is not. I am sure you can understand the consequent frustration.

Thank you

Mandy Shaw (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Quem vidistis pastores? (Ercole Pasquini)

Hi, I just stumbled on the redirect page Quem vidistis pastores? (Raffaella Aleotti). Can you shed light on whether this is actually a misattribution warranting Template:Misattributed work or just a typo local to CPDL? Tia, Richard Mix (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

1 I just stumbled on the redirect page 2 Can you shed light 3 a misattribution 4 just a typo.
1 Yes? No! 2 Yes 3 No 4 Yes. Cjshawcj (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

tks, Composer: field ed. Richard Mix (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Croce penitential psalms

I'm not sure I can speak for the party line, since I don't think I have a lot of authority, or any certainty about whether there is editorial consensus, but I think the best solution might be that used for Monteverdi's Vespers of 1610. In that case, both the greater work and its components appear on the composer page, with the components indented to clarify their relationship. In that case, however, none of the components has their own work page, so the question of whether they are part of a larger work has been decided. I think, for the Vespers, that is in line with the mainstream consensus. In the case of other standard cycles, such as the penitential psalms or Le Vergini, I am not so sure the debate has been settled, but I am sympathetic to those who see them as a greater work.

PS. With reference to Croce's penitential psalms as an example, I do like having separate work pages for contrafacts and separate publication pages for the publications that present those contrafacts. In other words I am happy that there is a separate publication page for the Latin version of Croce's penitential psalms. I just don't think there should be two publication pages for that publication. GeoffG (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll carry on the discussion here: I am not used to posting dialogues, and this one appears to spreading, disconnected, in a plurality of sites. I agree with your P.S. One work page is enough for the Latin/Italian publication, and the English publication has sufficient distinct interest to merit a page of its own. I will take issue with you on the first paragraph, in the hope that Richard Mix sees our discussion and developes it. I understand that the Monteverdi vespers ia a "larger" work: it is comprised of free-standing items which together make a composite whole (Vespers). However, 7 penitential psalms remain a collection of discrete items; they do not represent a larger cycle conceived as a single entity. Such a collection is more analogous to a collection of (say) half a dozen masses, where the intention would never be to perform them as a single sequence. The correct approach would be to record and evidence them only on an individual basis. IM'UOCjshawcj (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I share your preference that the psalms be presented individually. As an example, see di Lasso's setting, where each psalm has multiple movements but is presented separately, like a collection of masses. My sympathy for those who would present the seven psalms together comes from the fact that the Penitential Psalms are a traditional and consistent selection of psalms that many see as a cycle. My sympathy would be greater if evidence can be presented that those psalms were historically performed together in sequence. This is why, despite my preference, I am willing to tolerate collected versions as well. GeoffG (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I'll take the liberty of indenting this discussion with colons. A more visible place for the large issues might be Category talk:Larger works, but the CPDL fora with their own markup conventions have some relevant background already, if I could only remember exactly where. Barry has outlined a daring vision of a workpage for every movement, which would be linked to larger works pages as well as publication pages. I lump myself with the lumpers, though: Psalmi Davidis poenitentiales (Orlando di Lasso) is kind of alarming in its present state.
The integrity of what constitutes a cycle is messier than we'd like: probably no one would perform both Magnificats of Vespro della Beata Vergine (Claudio Monteverdi), and Missa Ecce sacerdos (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina) includes an alternate dona nobis pacem for 4 voices instead of 6. I nevertheless consider both single 'works'. A problem for CPDL is how to deal with files combining sections, and in some cases different pieces. Le Febure's hymnary is an unfortunate case with Salvete flores martyrum (Jan Le Febure) combining verses from different hymns, and liturgical reconstructions like Vesperis Omnium Sanctorum (Ludwig Senfl) pose real cataloguing challenges. Richard Mix (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure I fully understand this discussion. The situation with Giovanni Croce's Penitential Psalms seems to be:
  • Croce first published Li sette sonetti penitenziali, a sei voci in 1596 in Italian, by Giacomo Vincenti in Venice; words are paraphrases of the seven psalms in sonnet form by Francesco Bembo. RISM A/I: C-4483.
  • In 1599 was published Septem psalmi poeitentiales sex vocum. A Giovanni Croce, Venetiis ad S. Marci Archi-musico, Italica lingua primum modulati: nunc vero ad aliorum, qui istam non callent, pium usum in Latinam linguam conversi, ab amatore quodum musicae in Latin by Adam Berg in Munich. IMSLP calls this the "Second Edition", but that does not seem to be justified. Did Croce have anything to do with the 1599 publication?
  • Both CPDL pages refer to the Latin version of the psalms, apparently translated from the Italian by "A lover of music" of unknown identity (does anyone know who?). So far, no one has posted the Italian version with original words by Bembo. There are clearly two publications here, with different titles. I can change one of the two CPDL pages to the 1596 Italian publication if you wish. Both pages should have options for complete editions as well as pages for the individual psalms.
  • Notice that Croce and Bembo don't call these poems "psalms" but "sonnets". The title of the 1599 publication is a little odd, as if the editor (or publisher) needed to explain.
I will address the larger questions raised by Richard Mix later. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There is an English example here, but whether it is tha same printing as that I consulted (in the Bodleian) is uncertain. The preface is signed R.H. and whilst he remains unidentified, he is usually credited with the Englishification. I have been unable to find the Italian version online, but can confirm that it does exist since the late Michael Proctor produced a parallel Latin/Italian/English edition of three of the psalms.
Because of the migration of this discussion, my ancillary point about the editorial bundling of Tomkins' penitential psalms has become detached. To reiterate: "P.S. After writing the above, I have noticed that today a new proprietary bundle has been posted (Tomkins' Seven potential psalms) [original posting had Tallis as a slip of the pen - apologies for any confusion]. This too is double-counted on the composer page. I don't believe that editorial repackaging should be incorporated on CPDL workpages." This bundle is an editorial titling of works contained in the Musica Deo sacraCjshawcj (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I created Musica Sacra to Six Voices (Giovanni Croce) and Li sette sonetti penitenziali a sei voci (Giovanni Croce), and merged the two 1599 publications into Septem Psalmi poenitentiales sex vocum (Giovanni Croce). More later. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2021 (UTC)