User talk:Fysh: Difference between revisions
Richard Mix (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
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. ;-) [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 04:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | 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. ;-) [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:Fysh|Andrew Fysh (talk)]] ([[User talk:Fysh|talk]]) 04:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:22, 5 October 2019
Welcome
Welcome to CPDL! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun! Claude (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation
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)