Talk:William Byrd: Difference between revisions
(reply) |
m (Comments from DF) |
||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
[[User:CHGiffen|ChuckGiffen]] 12:22, 24 May 2006 (PDT) | [[User:CHGiffen|ChuckGiffen]] 12:22, 24 May 2006 (PDT) | ||
... and there's a secular Latin song (''Quis me statim'') - in MS only, so not much chance we'll ever get it, but you never know. Given that we have to have the Sacred/Secular division at all (which I suppose we do, although it's not one Byrd would have recognised), then the new page layout looks good to me. | |||
--[[User:DaveF|DaveF]] 14:50, 24 May 2006 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 21:50, 24 May 2006
Just a thought: all of the Latin is sacred, is it not? In which case, you could do something like...
Sacred music in Latin
| A–L | M–Z |
|---|
Sacred and secular music in English
| Sacred | Secular |
|---|
The Latin divided into A–L & M–Z in order to put the masses close to the top of the right-hand column :)
Best, Philip Legge ♇ ℗ @ © Φ 09:22:49, 2006-05-24 (PDT)
I agree about moving the Masses to the top of the second column (which I'll do now). And, in principle, I would agree about your grouping Sacred and secular music in English, except not quite all of Byrd's secular music is in English ... La Verginella is an Italian madrigal.
ChuckGiffen 12:22, 24 May 2006 (PDT)
... and there's a secular Latin song (Quis me statim) - in MS only, so not much chance we'll ever get it, but you never know. Given that we have to have the Sacred/Secular division at all (which I suppose we do, although it's not one Byrd would have recognised), then the new page layout looks good to me.
--DaveF 14:50, 24 May 2006 (PDT)