User talk:Marchesa

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks for your latest edition

Hello Paul and thank you for you recent edition of O crux benedicta by Claudio Merulo. I've just tidied up to page to remove a bit of code which doesn't belong there and correct the links to the PDF and Finale files. Going through this, I noticed a note which you added to your user page saying that "Some scores are listed as contributed by "Paul Marchesano" but do not turn up in this search." I've just corrected the link on one score page, Hodie Beata Virgo (Peter Philips) but that is the only one that appears to link to Paul Marchesano erroneously (see here). Also, your user page User:Paul R. Marchesano says that you have contributed 125 scores but I can only find 55 (including the score I mentioned above). As this is such a large discrepency, I'm a bit concerned that there are a lot of pages which link to the wrong user page. Can you shed any light on the situation? Thanks --Bobnotts talk 21:17, 23 January 2008 (PST)

Links & Score count

I had adjusted the score count from its previous setting at 95. I had not done a count of scores. It seems that my old user account/name from CPDL before the wiki site did not transfer the contributed scores or history. When i signed up on the new wiki it seems that i had a new profile created which began linking scores from that point. I have to check my computer and all the posted scores on the site to find the discrepancies. it may be that the scores i uploaded in mid-2007 disappeared after teh crash last summer. Also, the original counter may have been counting mass movements as a score, and i assume that the current system rightly counts an entire mass with its parts as one score. i will try to work on this in the next few weeks to replace missing scores and or miscounted ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marchesa (talkcontribs) on 14:17, 28 January 2008.

I have uploaded some missing scores - the links to files may not be right, sorry for the confusion. Counting a Mass setting as one score, I will fix the number of scores correctly this week. Thanks for all the help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marchesa (talkcontribs) on 12:04, 29 January 2008.

Missa "Qual Donna" (Orlando di Lasso)

Hi Paul. Thanks very much for this latest addition. As is the standard on CPDL, I have combined the movements to a single page and corrected links. Thanks again. --Bobnotts talk 07:37, 24 February 2008 (PST)

Byrd's O Salutaris Hostia (a6) - 21 V 1: Natural?

Dear Paul,

Just a quick question about your edition of Byrd's superb "O salutaris hostia" (a6). I've noticed in the editions of both Warwick Edwards (for "The Byrd Edition" (Stainer and Bell, gen. ed. Philip Brett)) and David Skinner (for the Cardinall's Musick) that the inclusion of a B natural on the second beat of bar 21 in the 5th part down (in this case, Tenor II) is supported by no source evidence - neither Edwards nor Skinner includes this natural in their editions, and no mention is made by Edwards of textual variants between sources in this case.

This is a tricky one, not least since there is only one source for this voice part (London, British Library, Add. MS 31390 f. 17v) - the Baldwin partbooks (which sit in my college library [Christ Church, Oxford] only a few yards away!) lack this Tenor book, infuriatingly the only partbook missing.

How did you come by the natural yourself? I'm all for its inclusion, not just because it creates perhaps the juiciest clash of the piece(!) but also because it completes the strictness of the canon that Byrd pursues so closely in the rest of the piece (in this case the Tenor II part is the last part to imitate the Alto II and Soprano before it, both containing themselves the necessary natural). Moreover, the clash that this creates is no one-off dissonance!

I will be performing this piece with the Christ Church choir in just over a week's time, during the communion of a Eucharist (to be coupled with Byrd 4-part Mass) - the more heads turned the better!

Best wishes,

Edward Tambling 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Senior Organ Scholar, Christ Church, Oxford

Hi Edward,

I am aware of those three editions. I've performed this piece a couple of times and in rehearsal, these particular clashes seem to be a matter of discussion. Since there is no source, one has to depend on the other parts and the rules of composition the composer knew and followed, and finally musica ficta practice as well. The B natural in m21 in T-II is based on canonic rule, i.e., Byrd sets up strict canons throughout the piece. It is also supported by the very same [cadential] clash that occurs in the A-I and A-II in m23 (A-flat vs. A-natural). Note how the pattern repeats again and again in this way. One could argue for E-natural in the Soprano in m24, however, I have presented E-flat because a natural would create a tritone with A-I in addition to a flat-natural clash with the tenor.

In the end, it is up to the performers/director, and there is no crime in changing what is in the edition. In Burd's time they did it all the time, and these things weren't marked, trained singers just knew how to canon and cadence in their part. If you look at it from the standpoint of singing it from a part book, you would automatically tend to raise the B-flat to natural. I chose to present the B-natural because of the structure and balance, and why not? The piece is rich with these clashes, and it seems from his music that Byrd was particularly fond of them too. If you send me a private email, I could send you an mp3 of a performance of the piece with the B-natural, for kicks :)

Best of luck at Christ Church. A nice place to be! I have not been there is some years and am overdue a return visit to England.

Best regards, Paul --Marchesa 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Paul,

Many thanks for your speedy response!

Thanks for the clarifications. I actually hadn't noticed your E flat in the Soprano in m24. To be honest, the tritone that an E natural would create is the least of your problems! There's (a less obvious) tritone in the previous bar given by AII against TII, but I can see your point - the E natural soprano clash against the E flat TII in b24 is a bit strong. However, I would argue for the E natural on the same grounds as the B natural case of my original query, i.e. on grounds of canonic integrity.

If only Byrd had printed this in his lifetime! Things would be so much clearer. I have this endearing image in my mind of Byrd showing this piece to Tallis, the ink still wet on the pages, who promptly plays it through and writes in a despairing at the bottom "3/10 - SEE ME". Byrd then shoves it back in the drawer and later palms it off on the recusants...

I've sung the piece myself at original pitch (with ATTBarBarB) i.e. down a minor third (and occasionally a fourth) from what is given here. To that end, we actually ended up using the other CPDL score for this work, edited by David Fraser (whom I have also contacted about this issue!), since it was presented at that pitch. Mr Fraser includes the B natural in m21 (it becomes a G# in the transposition), and it was using this edition that raised the initial question. I had heard the Cardinall's Musick recording (on "The Byrd Edition Vol. 2" on the Gaudeamus label) in which they omit the B natural - hearing this again (and they use the Skinner edition that I have in my hand now) bugged me about the lack of dissonance that I had been expecting! Still, at least I know what it is now.

I've been in contact with a number of Byrd/Tallis editors on CPDL about editing techniques about some of the pieces that I've come across, and it's always interesting to hear a wide range of opinions on these issues. The question of augmented 6ths in Byrd's music (especially in "Ne irascaris - Civitas sancti tui") has been engrossing me over the past few months.

Many thanks for your time concerning this issue - all the best with the editing, and keep up the good work!

Best wishes,

Edward Tambling 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

text missing in Busnois description?

  • Posted by: Vaarky 05:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent contribution of Regina Caeli (I) (Antoine Busnois). The text in the description appears to have been cut off during the form submission to CPDL. Can you help complete it again? Thanks.

Sancte Paule apostole (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina)


I'm not sure from the subtitle whether Magnus Sanctus Paulus is the secunda pars of Sancte Paule apostole, or whether MSP has SPa as a 2nda pars. I hope they both end up on the same page in any case and look forward as always to your next project! Richard Mix 22:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard,
SPA is secunda pars of MSP (a 8). I will put them up separately and probably include the link to each on both pages, as they work as stand-alone motets as well. There is also an MSP a 4, which I will plan on completing. Cheers! -Paul Marchesa 22:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A ce matin (Orlando di Lasso)

Thank you for uploading that chanson, i didn't known it. A real fine text typical of Lassus irony spirit. I like it very much.
BenZene 16:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Glad you like it. You'll notice the translation to English is a bit softer than the actual. :)

Cantate Domino (Sweelinck)

Hi, Your edition in fact uses the original note values. They're not halfed! See: [1]

Actually mine does, James Gibb's edition is using the original note values. Thanks! Marchesa (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2012 (CDT)

Ave Maria, Op. 12 (Johannes Brahms) typo

Hi Paul, Wanted to let you know of a small slip at Ave Maria, Op. 12 (Johannes Brahms). All the best! Richard Mix (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard. I did not see this until today I have uploaded replacement midi, Finale source and PDF files with the error corrected.Marchesa (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus sprach zu dem Blinden (Melchior Vulpius)

Hi, We're singing from your edition next Sunday and I wondered about "seben" (can't find anything on archaisms for sehen) and what I take for G naturals following the G sharps in m.33 as well as the repeated eighths on the last beat of m. 10. The Berkeley library has a few 17c prints of other Vulpius volumes but nothing to help in this case! Richard Mix (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I think I may have replied via email, but further research on the sources reveals the answer. "seben" = Future (singular) "I shall" or "I shall have" -- so the translation is slightly free by using the English word, "receive".Marchesa (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if I jumped the gun by assuming "sehen"! Which dictionary did you find this in? One of course doesn't expect Wictionary to have all the answers… Richard Mix (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually I asked a friend who is a German translator by trade :) Marchesa (talk) 06:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Hmph! I'm still skeptical after checking a handful of other dictionaries. Grimm has nouns having to do with fishing nets and incense made from juniperus sabina as well as sebern, a variant of seifern (to slobber), though. Richard Mix (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you again for the edition! To update, there are now scans of both 1612 and 1615 prints at IMSLP. Richard Mix (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)