User talk:Imruska

Illibata Dei Virgo nutrix

See Talk:Illibata Dei Virgo nutrix (Josquin des Prez) for my reply to your message left on the edition page for Illibata... (your message was moved to the Talk page). By the way, I was very pleased to see your edition of Illibata... posted, and I took the liberty of supplying rather copious comments when I added the extra information necessary to clean up the page yesterday. ChuckGiffen 08:16, 6 December 2006 (PST)

Missa Nasce la gioja mia

I uploaded Palestrina's Missa Nasce la gioja mia, which is amongst the requested scores, in the pending category. I tried to edit that page, but I couldn't. Could an administrator please move this mass from the pending category to the completed? Thanks

Pothárn Imre 14 February 2007, 16.22 GMT

Hi Pothárn, a link to your edition was added to the Request page above, thanks for that edition! —Carlos  20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Gustate et videte

Hi Pothárn, you've added a link to the file Lassus Gustate et videte.ly on your edition of Lassus' Gustate et videte, but you seem to have forgotten to upload the file. Should I remove the link from that page? By the way, thanks for this new edition! Regards, —Carlos (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, thank you for pointing this out. I uploaded the Lilypond file. Imruska (talk)

Great, thank you! —Carlos 03:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

In die tribulationis - Jacquet de Mantua

Thanks for your note. I seem to have inadvertently deleted one line from the Latin text (or failed to notice that it had been omitted by the editor). The only difference I can find between the two editions is that the Jacquet text includes Et exercitabar et scopebam spiritum meum, so that needs to be corrected. (Lachrymis is also spelt differently, but that strikes me as trivial). I suggest you leave it to me to make the changes and then, if you are not happy with the way I have indicated the differences, we can decide jointly how best to resolve matters. It won't be until tomorrow at the earliest that I can tackle this, since I've got a choir rehearsal this evening.

Incidentally, I noticed one minor typo when looking through your edition; Bar 30 Soprano has at for et.
Jamesgibb (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for pointing out the typo, I fixed it and uploaded fixed version. Imruska (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Right, I've tidied up my rather sloppy work on the text page. As far as I can see, the only difference is that the Jacquet version includes the 2nd half of Ps.76:7, so I've made this clear. I think the good reason for having a text page is that it gathers together all the information about the text, such as source and translations, rather than individual editors having to add this to each works page. However, if you feel strongly that you would prefer to have the text back on your works page, I don't have an issue with that. I think it would still be sensible to have a link to the text page as well, though, just in case anyone is interested in other settings of the words.

Let me what you think, Potharn.
Jamesgibb (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that pieces which have the same text, should have a common page. But the In die tribulationis page is in my opinion far from perfect. I'd prefer - and not just here - to have the verse numbers omitted, all the more so, that this particular text is a compilation of non adjacent verses. I would remove the square parentheses around prae lachrymis as well. And the Matthew text (if it really is taken from that Matthew passage) is incorrect, it should be: Haec omnia initia fuerunt dolorum meorum.

Have just noticed your comment, since, although I was "watching" your discussion page, I didn't appear to get a message that you had added a comment. Will think about the points you make and get back to you.
Jamesgibb (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Omnia quae fecisti (Orlando di Lasso)

Have notice a minor typo in your version of this. I think misericordiam tuam should be misericordiae tuae - genitive, not accusative. However, the error may well be in the source.
Jamesgibb (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi James, maybe you got confused because the most common variant reads "secundum multitudinem misericordiae tuae". But here, as we don't have the word multitudinem, the correct case is indeed the accusative. Regards, —Carlos 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)