User talk:Sabine Cassola: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m (chronological order) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== La la maître Pierre == | == La la maître Pierre == | ||
| Line 25: | Line 17: | ||
[[User:SingAndGlorify|SingAndGlorify]] 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | [[User:SingAndGlorify|SingAndGlorify]] 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
== [[Descendi in ortum meum (John Dunstable)]] == | |||
Dear Sabine, | |||
Thank you for your work bringing old pieces to greater public access. I wanted to point out a problem in your edition of Descendi in ortum meum by John Dunstaple. As you will know it survives in two fragmentary sources but there are gaps where parts are missing for sections of a few bars at a time. You have obviously reconstructed these in your edition, but you have made no mention of this reconstruction. This is misleading to anyone viewing the edition who does not know about the sources of the work, so please add some text clarifying what you have reconstructed (and perhaps put brackets around the notes that are editorial). | |||
Best wishes, [[User:Daniel Rollison|Daniel Rollison]] ([[User talk:Daniel Rollison|talk]]) 18:16, 28 December 2012 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 17:39, 7 January 2013
La la maître Pierre
Good morning Sabine,
About your edition of La la maître Pierre, i noticed that the transliteration of the tenor text seems misplaced (one note to the left). But do you really think that transliteration is appropriate ? Amicalement
BenZene 05:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Beati inmaculati a 6 (Samuel Friedrich Capricornus)
Hi, I'm just wondering if the spelling of immaculati is a variant or merely a typo. Nice edition, btw! Richard Mix 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Tota pulcra es a 12 (Hieronymus Praetorius)
Hi Sabine,
both editions of Tota pulcra es a 12 (Hieronymus Praetorius) point to files of the ATTB-edition, so there is no way to access the SATB-edition!
Greetings from Munich, Oliver
SingAndGlorify 16:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Descendi in ortum meum (John Dunstable)
Dear Sabine,
Thank you for your work bringing old pieces to greater public access. I wanted to point out a problem in your edition of Descendi in ortum meum by John Dunstaple. As you will know it survives in two fragmentary sources but there are gaps where parts are missing for sections of a few bars at a time. You have obviously reconstructed these in your edition, but you have made no mention of this reconstruction. This is misleading to anyone viewing the edition who does not know about the sources of the work, so please add some text clarifying what you have reconstructed (and perhaps put brackets around the notes that are editorial).
Best wishes, Daniel Rollison (talk) 18:16, 28 December 2012 (CST)