User talk:Jason Smart

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi Jason, a belated welcome to CPDL! :) Thanks for all these new editions.

I replied to your question on my own talk page, please check there, ok? —Carlos Email.gif 01:26, 11 September 2012 (CDT)

Asperges me (Anonymous) disambiguation

Hi Jason,

Always a pleasure to spot another of your new editions! Asperges me (Anonymous) (not to be confused with Asperges me Domine (Anonymous)) is apparently the 2nd setting in Gyffard. I'd be very interested to know what you think of titling anonymous pieces; the Anon. composer page is really getting out of control. One solution I've seen is O salutaris Hostia (Gyffard) (Anonymous) though [[Title (Anonymous, source)]] avoids double parentheses. All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

I really haven't got the hang of how this ChoralWiki works, so I hope you see this. I screwed up the upload of "Asperges me" and I messaged Carlos to ask him to alter the title to "Asperges me (Gyffard Partbooks, 2nd setting)", but I can't relocate my message. Yes, the Anonymous section is getting very unwieldy. I am not really qualified to comment, but it occurs to me that people querying the anonymous section will likely have specific parameters in mind. I haven't really thought about it before, but offhand it seems to me that what is required is for the "Anonymous" composer link to lead to a hierarchy of sub-pages where one can "drill down" further via (1) sacred/secular, (2) period and (3) nationality. But ideally one would want to query any of these three in any order of priority, e.g. I might be looking for anonymous, secular French music from the Baroque era, or, alternatively, anonymous French music from the Renaissance that's sacred. Rather you than me!

Jason

Sheppard page

Hi,

I noticed your suggestion on Carlo's page and experimented with a couple of small tweaks to the sortworks function at John_Sheppard#Latin_works. A possibly easier & tidier way might be the sortable table, as used at Johannes Ockeghem. Best of luck, from Tom Sawyer Richard Mix (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Richard,

Thanks for picking up the gauntlet! An Ockeghem-type table would certainly work, but my own preference would be to group the pieces under sub-headings, much as they are now. I'd do the job myself except that I know there are various cross-references for many of the editions (to things like scoring and genre) and I'd be sure to mess things up if I tried meddling.

Best wishes,

Jason

Gloria Patri (Tallis)

Thanks for adding the information. It was obviously an extract from somewhere, but I had no idea where! I've edited your comment so that it leads directly to the relevant page.
Jamesgibb (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Fawkyner

Hi Jason. Sorry to take so long to reply (both family/medical issues and general extreme busy-ness these days, plus some searching about on John & Richard Fawkyner). I've moved the composer page to Fawkyner and added information that I've gleaned on the two possible suspects. I'm pretty sure Tim Symons was aware of the John background, since he is quite a scholar, and only subsequently may have entertained the possibility that there was a Cambridge Richard as an alternate choice. Anyway, many many many thanks for the "Gaude rosa" score! It's something I've wanted to see for a long, long time. Do you plan to engrave the other Fawkyner work? (I hope so!). Best wishes -- Chucktalk Giffen 18:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

O columba sapientiae

Thanks for fixing the typo!

Everton

Hi Jason. The problem is that the file with the pdf extension is actually a mid (midi) file - even the upload note says it's a midi file (and the file size is 4Kb not 40Kb). Just delete the current wrongly labeled file and either upload a new pdf(!) file or stay with the old pdf file. That should work. Best wishes. -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. Many thanks for your help. I think I've sorted it.

Jason Smart (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Barber (I)

Hi Jason, I see you reverted my edits, where I estimated birth and death dates. You are correct, there is "no evidence of birth c. 1500 or death c. 1560." You obviously know a great deal more about this composer than I do, yet the categories "<Date> births" and <Date> deaths" represent the best way we have to assign a composer as to range of years, for history purposes. Otherwise this composer would not appear on English composers, listed by birth year and other lists. However, I notice you didn't change the birth and death categories on this page. Would you mind if we keep the page as it is now? — Barry Johnston (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barry,
Thanks for explaining. The trouble with guessing dates is that there's always a danger of purveying false impressions. However, I understand your rationale for wanting a range of dates. For what it's worth, my gut feeling is that Barber is probably roughly contemporary with Taverner (there's a brief allusion to Taverner's four-part 'Dum transisset' in Barber's own setting), so if it's possible to push your suggested range back 10 years to c.1490–c.1550, I think that might be better. Best wishes Jason Smart (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Jason, thanks for the suggestion! I will do that. — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Magnificat (William Mundy)

Hello Jason,

You recently removed the line "{{Pub|0|1572|in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]''|ms=ms|no=76}}" from this page, and wrote "Removing incorrect '1572' link to Gyffard Partbooks". I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does this work not appear in the Gyffard Partbooks? Or is "1572" the incorrect year? In order to make lists work, e.g., "Works at CPDL", and in order for the work to be linked to the correct publication, there needs to be only one integer year in the second parameter of the Pub template, and that number needs to be the same for all works in that publication (manuscript in this case). However you can adjust this to better represent available knowledge, such as "{{Pub|0|c. 1572|in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]'' … }}" or "{{Pub|0|1572|– 1590 in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]'' … }}" or {{Pub|0|c. 1572| (copied c. 1580) in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]'' … }}", so long as the number in the second parameter is the same for all works in the publication. Maybe you can think of other options. Perhaps we need different dates for the whole manuscript? What do you think?

I fully understand the issues with manuscripts. I am currently dealing with a set of early American manuscripts that seem to defy dating. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Barry.
Apologies for not having been more specific. The dates for the Gyffard Partbooks are fine. The problem is that the Magnificat for SAATB, SAATB, edited by Ralph Buxton (not George Steel), does not appear in those partbooks. It is part of a Magnificat and Nunc dimittis pair to English words, known as the "Evening Service to Mr Parsons' Service". Its sources are all 17th century, dating from at least 40 years after Mundy died. If you need a date for the work, c.1575 would be as good a guess as any.
Incidentally, although Ralph Buxton's edition is marked as a broken link, it does appear to be working. I haven't looked to see whether Buxton's edition of the Nunc dimittis is also on CPDL, but, whether it is or not, it might not be a bad idea to make both the Mag and Nunc available on the same page, since the two works are a pair.
The Gyffard Partbooks consist exclusively of four-part compositions to Latin texts. They do contain a Magnificat by Mundy, but it is a completely different setting, for four voices. The Gyffard Partbooks page links to the correct work.Jason Smart (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Jason,

Are you saying that the page Magnificat (William Mundy) should be renamed Magnificat and Nunc dimittis (Anonymous), to include links to both of these works on this page? I'm thinking the description should include much of the first paragraph of your reply above, and clearly state its relationship to The Second 'Excellent' Service for Means (Robert Parsons). What should its date be, maybe just "17th century" or do you have a better estimate? What does the date 1575 refer to (contemporary with William Mundy)?

PS. Your line of equal signs was interpreted by the MediaWiki software as a series of headers. If you wish to use an equal sign, better to do it in a Template, like {{=}} – which would be interpreted as =.

PPS. Marking the link as Broken was done by Richard Mix, not me. I agree it isn't broken. Please click on the History tab on any page to see who did what. — Barry Johnston (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Barry.
Thanks for the guidance.
Just to avoid any possible confusion, I should say first that there is nothing at all wrong with the page entitled Magnificat (Latin) (William Mundy).
The work we are talking about is the Magnificat and the Nunc dimittis that William Mundy wrote to complete Robert Parsons's Second Service for Means. Ralph Buxton edited both of these movements. They are currently available on CPDL but on separate pages (Magnificat (William Mundy) and Nunc Dimittis (William Mundy)). Since the two movements belong together, I think it would be sensible and helpful if both pages could be amalgamated onto one page. I think the clearest title for that page would be "Magnificat and Nunc dimittis to Robert Parsons's Second Service (William Mundy)". As for the date, it would be misleading to describe it as "17th century" because obviously Mundy can't have composed the service after he died (which happened in 1591). Since the manuscripts of the service are all late, we can only guess at when Mundy did actually compose it. All we can say is that it doesn't use the 1549 prayer book text. My suggestion of 1575 was random. I only suggested it in case you needed a specific year — although any one year is bound to be misleading. If it's possible to cope with a range of dates, the least contentious description would be "later sixteenth century", or "c.1558–1591". If you prefer the latter and need to pick a specific year for cross-referencing I'd recommend 1558.
Hope this helps.
Jason Smart (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)