Talk:Orlando di Lasso

Reorganisation

User:Barry Johnston has drawn my attention to an interesting proposal in the CPDL Operation and Implementation issues forum which I mean to study.

My very first impression is that it would be a pity to have to re-invent a labeling system for publications; it's confusing to read:

0380	1570	Viginti quinque sacræ cantiones, 5vv	Nur	Sac	Mot	5	Second enlarged edition of 1562a.

and find that 1562a

0120	1562	Sacrae cantiones quinque vocum	Nur	Sac	Mot	5	Enlarged 2nd edition issued in 1570

has a higher number than 1562b

0110	1562	Il terzo libro delle Muse a quattro voci	Rom	Sec	Mad	4	Publisher A. Barré.

let alone to deal with No.s 1-94. I have to admit though I haven't thought much about how NG chooses the letters in its YYYYl format. Richard Mix (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard! The issue between 1562a and 1562b has been fixed. I chose to use index numbers because I couldn't find one publication numbering system that indexed everything in the table at the bottom of this page. IMSLP appears to use two different systems, one with letter suffixes and another with numbers -- and some known publications aren't listed or given codes. In addition, some of Lasso's works appeared in publications of others. (Forgive my ignorance; what is NG?). If there is a numbering system in place that has everything, I would be happy to use it.

The index numbers I use could be in a separate table, if it is confusing to have them here; but it is necessary to have them somewhere, so that new publications can be inserted.

The numbers (1 - 92) on this page are optional, mostly I needed them to make sure I had the same number of publications on all three pages. These numbers will change as more publications are added, so perhaps they shouldn't appear. I have removed them.

Are there ways these pages could be improved? Thanks for your help. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)