User talk:Peter Gibson

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alan Gray Nunc dimittis

Hi. I think you've made a slight mistake in your version of Alan Gray's Nunc dimittis. I've just followed your score whilst listening to it being sung on the BBC's Choral Evensong on Radio 3, and in bar 151, the Can treble line sings "For mine" to the notes C and Db, rather than the two C's you've written. In the organ part it has C and Db as well. DTOx 02:22, 21 December 2006 (PST)

Having recently uploaded all my files to the CPDL I checked the files involved, and it looks as if I made the correction soon after you pointed out the problem. All I hadn't done was upload them! So that problem is solved: now for the next ones.Peter Gibson 17:04, 11 March 2012 (CDT)


Hi Peter, I noticed that you've been writing !Sibelius7 (with an exclamation mark). What exactly does that mean? :) —Carlos Email.gif 00:07, 8 March 2012 (CST)

This all boils down to ancient (computer) history. When the brothers Ben & Jonathan Finn started writing their score notation program (named after a more famous Finn: Sibelius), they chose to write for Acorn's RISC OS operating system. On that system the application directory name is always prefixed by a !, thus instructing the OS how to handle that object (that is, run it). Accordingly, after several updates Sibelius 7 was released. They then moved platform to Windows (and Mac Os later in parallel) starting with Sibelius.
So far, so easy; until further updates saw the recent release of Sibelius 7 for Windows / Mac Os, leading to the need to distinguish between the old Acorn Sibelius 7, and the new Sibelius 7 for Win/Mac.
As all my source files are Acorn Sibelius 7, I chose to differentiate by using the RISC OS application name convention; anyone familiar with RISC OS should recognise that immediately.
Just to add to the fun, Sibelius for Win/Mac versions 1.1 to 4 can import !Sibelius7, later versions cannot (AFAIK).
Peter Gibson 13:33, 8 March 2012 (CST)
Peter, thank you for this thorough explanation! Would you mind if part of it were added to ChoralWiki:Sibelius so others may learn about the differences? (or, if you feel like doing it yourself, please go ahead! :) —Carlos Email.gif 12:19, 9 March 2012 (CST)
I have just taken a look at ChoralWiki:Sibelius; the reference to Sibelius running on Windows, Mac and Acorn is a little misleading in the context of the current versions. I will try to put up something a little more precise over the next few days (singing and other choir-related activities allowing!)
Peter Gibson 16:32, 9 March 2012 (CST)
Hi Peter, that will be great! I could try to update that page myself but I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the matter. :) —Carlos Email.gif 10:31, 10 March 2012 (CST)
By the way, yesterday I intended to raise a question about the best way to visually present the version info on the works page, but forgot about it. You said that people familiar with RISC OS will easily identify the !Sibelius label, but perhaps we should try to make it recognizable by a broader audience. What about using "Acorn Sibelius 7" instead? Would it be good enough for you? If you agree, I can run a ReplaceText on all pages so you don't have any extra work. —Carlos Email.gif 10:47, 10 March 2012 (CST)
Carlos, Using "Acorn Sibelius 7" sounds as if it will fit the bill perfectly, and avoids me having to deal with such arcana as application directories, !boot files and !run files; all very interesting stuff, but not closely related to choral singing!
Replacement Sibelius page suggestion is part-way towards my suggested expansion of ChoralWiki:Sibelius. Comments?
Peter Gibson 11:52, 10 March 2012 (CST)
Hi Peter, just read your suggested text, it's excellent! I could easily understand the differences between versions/platforms. You may update the Sibelius page with your text at any time. Thanks again! —Carlos Email.gif 15:32, 11 March 2012 (CDT)
Carlos, Job done!Peter Gibson 16:27, 11 March 2012 (CDT)

Boyce's Morning Services in A

Hi Peter! I would like to standardize a bit the Morning Services in Boyce's page, and looking in the Grove Dictionary I found two works listed in A: Te Deum and Jubilate, A, verse, c1740 and Te Deum and Jubilate, A, short, c1750. Which is yours? And would you mind if I rename your Morning Service in A Major to one of these titles ("Te Deum and Jubilate in A (short/verse)? Do you have another suggestion to disambiguate between the two services in A? Thanks. —Carlos Email.gif 11:20, 26 May 2012 (CDT)

I can quite see why you want to standardise the Morning service section; it could get even messier if anyone gets round to posting the Te Deum and Jubilate in G! The source I used for my edition did not differentiate between the 2 services in A, obviously Mr Blount (then organist at Wimborne Minster) only copied into his organ book the services used by the choir at that time. If the Te Deum and Jubilate in A Major is the Te Deum and Jubilate, A, verse, c1740 then mine must be the other one. Does Grove indicate which of the two was published as Fifteen Anthems together with a Te Deum and Jubilate... 1780? Peter Gibson 15:17, 26 May 2012 (CDT)
Hi, Grove unfortunately does not give that information, but I just checked imslp:15 Anthems, Te Deum and Jubilate (Boyce, William) and the version therein is "verse and full", so it must only be that of 1740 (and yours, the "short" one). Thanks for your help! —Carlos Email.gif 13:48, 4 June 2012 (CDT)
Ah yes, that all makes sense now I have looked at imslp:15 Anthems, Te Deum and Jubilate (Boyce, William) (I should have looked at that earlier!). My one point of concern was that "my" TD&J are marked with Dec and Can sections, which could have been interpreted as verses, but the IMSLP one shows "real" verses, with a reduced two or three-part texture. Time, I think, to put "short, c1750" on my copies. Of couse this now puts another job on my to-do list: Borrow or buy a decent digital camera and upload Essential Cathedral Musick (3 vols) to IMSLP! Peter Gibson 15:05, 4 June 2012 (CDT)

Dr Boyce's Essential Cathedral Music

Hi Peter, congratulations, it's amazing the amount of information you're extracting from these volumes! When you wrote me, I wasn't aware that you had also added it to the biographies of all those composers, hehe. The formatting issue is just a superfluous embellishment, don't worry about it for now. :) Regards. —Carlos Email.gif 16:02, 6 June 2012 (CDT)

Carlos, If you think the information I am extracting from these volumes is amazing, just wait until you see the diatribe from Dr Croft in his first volume of anthems, 1724! I am only thankful that it was my sister who did all the typing over 10 years ago. It should hit CPDL by the end of the weekend, unless Samuel Webbe's 8 anthems in score gets in the way. Peter Gibson 16:17, 6 June 2012 (CDT)
I can't wait to see it! :) By the way, have you noticed the renaming suggestion left on here? I tend to agree with Cydonia on this. Regards. —Carlos Email.gif 13:47, 7 June 2012 (CDT)

Birth and Death year categories

Hi Peter, I noticed that you started adding birth and death year categories to a couple of lyricists. I'm afraid that this will have to be discussed further and maybe reverted, because currently these year categories are under Category:Composers grouped by birth year and Category:Composers grouped by death year. We could perhaps change their titles to "Category:People by ...", a format extensively used on Wikipedia. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Carlos, I seem to remember that, in adding birth and death years, I was following what I considered to be a useful precedent (see John Donne). The idea is not new (Category talk:Lyricists; but the discussion seems not to have taken off there), and does seem to be of some utility, not least in copyright issues.
Is it best to take this forward as a new topic on the "Operation and Implementation issues" board? Peter Gibson (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please! Hopefully on the forums this subject will have more visibility. I agree that we'd benefit from having birth and death categories added to lyricists too. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Peter, thank you for your willingness to add the categories. I'm planning an alternative way of categorizing composers and lyricists that would simplify the process, would you mind waiting for a couple of days before you proceed? —Carlos (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
<fx>Squeal of brakes</fx> Am pausing now (but I still think it is a better use of my time than washing the dishes! Peter Gibson (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
LOL, I totally agree :) I'll be quick, I promise! —Carlos (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, here's what I had in mind, how do you like it? (please have a look in the code inside Oscar Wilde). I'm planning a similar approach for Composer pages, it would greatly simplify the categorization task. Best, —Carlos (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Carlos, Looks good! I just added Dublin and Paris in the appropriate places to see it in action. How will this system cope with people who are both composers and lyricists? I am thinking here of, e.g. George Ratcliffe Woodward, as opposed to someone setting his/her own poetry. Is the process of migrating from the old to the new form at least semi-automated? Peter Gibson (talk) 21:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I ran a query and found less than 10 cases of composers AND lyricists, I think these could be handled using the Composer version combined with the addition of {{LyricistSettingsList}}. I previewed the result of one such case and it seemed to work. Now I have to check with the other admins to see if they buy the idea. I believe that a script would be able to convert most of the pages automatically. —Carlos (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Carlos, I was idly thinking this morning (Note to self: concentrate on the sermon!); is a separate template necessary for both Composers and Lyricists? I was thinking along the lines of a single Biography template with the opening argument list something like:

|composer = <"Yes"/"No">
|lyricist = <"Yes"/"No">
|aliases = <alias list>
|birth date = <date>

Clearly, there will be arguments that only apply to either composers or lyricists, but that should not be a problem (question, not statement!)? I would also guess that Template:New composer will need to be changed. Is there an equivalent page for Lyricists?
Disclaimer: My knowledge of Wiki-type scripting language syntax is in the range "minimal to none", but my thoughts on what may be possible are based on scripting languages that that I have played with more years ago than I care to admit! Peter Gibson (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Peter, a single template for both cases was exactly my initial plan, but then I realized that the code was becoming increasingly complex (many IFs to check whether it was a composer or lyricist). The other drawback was that the basic code to be pasted on a new page would have extra fields that would not be useful for lyricists: sex (for "Category:Women composers"); era/era2; nationality/nationality2. But on a second thought, the differences between the two codes are not that big after all, and eventually we may decide to also categorize lyricists by nationality, reducing the differences even more. I'll try and see if they can be merged. What about something in this line?

|activity(role?) = <"composer"/"lyricist"/"?both?">
|aliases = <alias list>
|birth date = <date>

I think of introducing a template like this ever since I started contributing here, but the current format was based on w:it:Template:Bio. Have a look at how they use two models for it, Tabella semplice and Tabella completa; we could do the same, one for each case. —Carlos (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)