Talk:Trent codices

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Composer?

Surely this should be considered a source rather than a composer? I have to say I'm a bit unhappy about opening the floodgates to all manner of MSS being considered "composers" when the composer can only be considered Anonymous. --Bobnotts talk 12:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob, I agree, and I think that we have been through this sometime in the dim past. Anonymous should be the composer. This makes even more sense when a work is available in more than one of these old sources. To me it is alright to have a page (or even perhaps a category) for "Trent codices" (or whatever), and works may be listed (or categorized) there, but the primary "composer compositions category" should be either for the actual composers or anonymous. – Chucktalk Giffen 12:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree with the above said; no problem with adding a "Category:Trent codices" to the works as Chuck suggests, but it should not be included as a composer. —Carlos Email.gif 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Bob, would this be a problem if the page were renamed Anonymous (Trent codices) compositions? It seems to me Anon. is more useful as a parent category: it's already split into chant repertories. Richard Mix 08:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Magnificat numbering

Now that Anonymous is an unannotated page it seems we'd better think about page naming. If I want to know whether a particular Magnificat is already on CPDL, I can peruse a list of Magnificat (tr88) I (Anonymous)Magnificat (tr88) XIV (Anonymous), then go down to double check on Magnificat III (Anonymous), also from tr88 and on the page following Magnificat (tr88) X (Anonymous). Magnificat (tr88) XI (Anonymous) is taken, however, so Magnificat (tr88) XV (Anonymous) seems to be the next available move target.

Might it not be better to just rename all in the ms. order, though? If(?) there is only one inventory numbering in use Magnificat (tr.88 no.46) (Anonymous) seems better than new roman numerals, while Magnificat (tr.88 fol.73v) (Anonymous) precludes any possible ambiguity, that is, unless there are any concordant sources. Richard Mix (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

If you wish to take on renumbering the Magnificats, I prefer "Arabic" numerals over Roman ones, because the Roman numerals don't sort well. There are other repeated texts in Trent as well. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I think when the convention was established no one was thinking of it getting as far as XL ;-) I'm a bit averse to 88.046, though. Richard Mix (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I picked "88.046" because it sorts well. I hope you understand. — Barry Johnston (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)