Talk:Harmonice Musices Odhecaton (Ottaviano Petrucci)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


A great idea to start these publication pages! I'm a little confused after a very quick perusal of WP & IMSLP: is it correct that HMO was published in 3 printings, 1501 (surviving partially), 1502 & 1504, (all with identical or mostly identical contents?), and then followed by 2 more anthologies titled Canti B & Canti C? Richard Mix (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

IMSLP calls 1501, 1502, and 1504 the First, Second, and Third Editions; I don't know if that is correct. The three Canti (A, B, C) seem to be three volumes published at the same time, that each went through three printings/editions?
By the way, this effort grew out of an effort by Claude T to make the Published template more consistent; I have been helping with this as I have time. To assist in this effort, I created the page Publications listed in chronological order, which prompted Claude to point out there were a lot of publication dates that didn't appear there. This is because many publications didn't have pages, which led to creating pages for at least the more significant publications. – Barry Johnston (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll understand better when I read Hewitt carefully, I guess! IMSLP has Canti A (incomplete 1501, missing excerpts from 1502, 1504) Canti B (incomplete 1501, 1503) & Canti C (1503). I'm not sure how the dates fit with the reckoning of new year from the Annunciation, but it seems the contents didn't change and the the table headers should perhaps read "Canti N".
On your larger project, do you & Claude agree that categorizing under a later publication date is only useful when the edition is augmented with new pieces? The 3-fold PubDatePlace template seems like overkill to me. Richard Mix (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Separation of volumes

I think Canti A, B, and C should either be given their own pages as separate publications (like Motetti A, Motetti de passione de cruce, and Motetti C) or at least listed as separate "Editions" using the Volumes template. I would vote for separate pages, since they each have different contents and I am not sure they were all printed in 1501 as a three-volume set. I am happy to implement either arrangement, but what do others think? GeoffG (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Helen Hewitt (1942) calls these three "volumes" in a "series". IMSLP also groups them together. This situation might work better on one page (perhaps the list of works on a subpage), with three volumes:
Volume A, 1501. Harmonice Musices Odhecaton
Volume B, 1502. Canti B. Numero cinquanta
Volume C, 1504. Canti C. No. cento cinquanta
There are several editions of these three. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)