User talk:Richard Mix

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Problems submitting a score

Hi, I'm struggling to learn the ropes here. After a few abortive attempts at "Add scores to CPDL" I found one file under my contributions page: File:Gaudeamus Battistini.pdf and have made an article page for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparafucil (talkcontribs) on 18:16, 15 January 2008.

Hi there. Welcome to CPDL and thank you for your edition! I'm sorry to hear that you're having difficulties. I've just created the composer page and added the works entry to it. Please supply the following information and I will format the score page correctly:
  • Your real name
  • The copyright that you are assigning to your edition (the preference is the CPDL license but you may apply any license to your edition; it would be a good idea to add this information to the bottom of the first page of the PDF too)
  • A MIDI file would be very useful if you are able to create one (not required but useful)
When you come to your next score submission, please try to follow the score submission guide which I think is very clear. If you're having problems, please leave a message on my talk page, noting the part that you're having difficulties with and I will endevour to help. Regards --Bobnotts talk 19:58, 15 January 2008 (PST)

Beatus vir

Hi Richard! I had to revert your edits made to Beatus vir, RV 597, because you were inadvertently removing the original info. You probably wanted to edit Beatus vir, RV 598, right? What probably happened was that you clicked on page RV 598 and was "redirected" to RV 597 without noticing it. When we move a page to another name, the original name automatically receives a "redirect" code to the new page. If that's what happened, tell me and I will copy to RV 598 the edits you made, so that you don't lose what you had already done. Regards -- CarlosTalk 21:40, 16 April 2008 (PDT)

Yes, that was it! I thought there was something wrong; thanks for putting it right. Richard Mix 18:38, 17 April 2008 (PDT)
Hi Richard, here I am again. I'm not sure I understood what you did. The PDFs you uploaded to RV 598 specify on their first pages that they are from RV 597! Is that correct? From what I saw, Beatus vir RV 597 is in C major, and RV 598 is in B flat major. I think it would be a good idea also to check with the admins if CPDL allows pages hosting only the orchestra parts, without their corresponding vocal parts. -- CarlosTalk 14:52, 19 April 2008 (PDT)
Yes, the two pages now need to be swapped. How did you find the uploaded files? And where should I try contacting the admins (one is Rafael, I assume? I would think it only a matter of time before someone adds choral parts, but... ) tia, Richard Mix 07:28, 21 April 2008 (PDT)
Hi Richard, the two pages contents are now swapped, remember your scores are now in RV 597! I found your uploaded files looking at the upload log available at Recent changes in the left menu. Try asking your questions to admins here: ChoralWiki:Sheet music requests and questions. Regards! -- CarlosTalk 11:39, 21 April 2008 (PDT)


Hi Richard!

I'd like to know if there is a reason why you created a redirect to this work. If you type these exact words in the search box, the correct page will be the first (and only) to appear, so this redirect seems unnecessary. The same applies to the various Hanacpachap redirects you created. The variant spellings are all inside the works page, so someone searching for any of them should be able to find that work without the need of the redirects.

Redirects are usefull only in some specific situations, as when we use template {{ChoralWiki}} on Wikipedia to redirect to a page on CPDL and the Wikipedia article title is different from the title at CPDL. Regards —Carlos Email.gif 16:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Carlos,
I was only trying to turn a red link at Psalm 114 blue, which is also easily accomplished by adding a first name. Is there a downside to having redirects? The only way I could find Hanacpachap before was to go to anonymous and look under H, which took quite a few extra seconds;-) Richard Mix 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard,
In fact redirects do increase a little bit the database's workload, since they need to be indexed too; we also have more work when we need to move the target page to a different title; but they are nonetheless useful in many situations. It's strange you couldn't find Hanacpachap: if you try a search with this name the works page shows up. This is what we've been doing when possible: to add composer aliases and composition variant titles in the page text so they can be found easily via the Search tool. —Carlos Email.gif 01:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, the only difference between "go" and "search" is the option to create a new page. I still have a WP habit of creating red links in preview mode to see what's there, but will try not to carry it over to CPDL (if you click on the one above you wont get any seach results at all). Shouldn't I have come across mention of this prefered strategy before somewhere? Richard Mix 02:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Text sources

Hi Richard. Thanks for adding text sources to score pages. It really helps to make ChoralWiki a truly interlinked website. I had one doubt, though, Confitebor tibi Domine (Giovanni Gabrieli). It looks more like parts of Psalm 9 vv.2-3 & 16 to me (though I can't identify the entire text). Do you agree? --Bobnotts talk 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bob,
Thanks for the catch! The Vulgate lumps Ps's 9 & 10, so: 9:2-3, (I think you're right about 16), 12, 10:37a. Btw, re JSB I think you meant that it is preferable to have external links from a cpdl page as here (I'm looking into the title of bwv 131, often given as Aus der Tiefen). With all the material at it might be nice to have a BachCantata template. Richard Mix 05:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about Sibelius 4 exporting to previous versions formats

Hi Richard I saw your question in John Patterson's talk page...Yes Sibelius 4(5 and now 6) gives you the possibility to save files so they can be opened with previous versions of Sibelius...that option is under the menu File and then Export (not "save as")...I hope it was helpful...Saniakob 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's only in Sib3 that it's under "save as SIb2 file". Thanks, Richard Mix 10:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bach Cantatas

(The other half of the conversation is here)

Hi Richard, you are right...the reasons why I did that is because of organizational purposes...The page is still "under construction"...there are many things to fix...So for the moment I am ordering editions...and creating sections (like Cantatas, Chorales so on) to put things in order...once all editions are ordered I will work on each section....So far, the cantatas which have a page including all pieces are those which are complete...Cantatas which have only some pieces in CPDL are given as titles with the corresponding editions listed below...I pretend to change that in the future, but for now that is the criterion...Thanks for the suggestion and comment!!Saniakob 13:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Richard, now I see, your edition is of Movement 1 and I listed it in Movement 7 mistake... There is a problem on making a page for the whole cantata when there are available only 2 Movements.If you see CPDL requires that the number of editions available must be mentioned...the cantatas which are complete and have editions of independent movements mention this "full score and independent movements" (or similar text). It is impossible to mention which movements are included in each page; it is note possible to write "some movements available" or to mention each movement next to the Cantata title. For clarity, the movements available are listed under the Cantata tile...This criterion is used in all CPDL pages, or at least is what I have been told by Admins...CPDL manager also added some templates to be used for the Cantatas section and did not object how things were, so I assume things are correctly organized... Regarding, languages and other mistakes on the edition pages... I will correct that in a near future, I am checking page by page...and taking notes on what needs to be fixed....For the moment, all of my time goes on finding the corresponding BWV catalog number for each entry on the page and checking if they are missatributions, translations or other stuff, as well as sending each edition to its corresponding section within the page...Regarding your suggestion of opening another Bach project in CPDL...I can't answer that...I think an Admin will give you a proper reply...Thanks again - Saniakob 13:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion you mention is about merging pieces which are the same piece but with different titles translated to other languages. I will ask you please to stop changing things at the page. If you were concerned with Bach page you could have adopted it before. I took it and CPDL admins know about it. I appreciate your concern but undoing my work doesn't help. Since CPDL was created Bach page is a mess...and things are much ordered now. Please respect my decisions about the page management, there is 1 volunteer per page and with Bach page it happens to be me...If you have a complain direct it to the admins...I wouldn't like to report you for interfering because I know you try to help, but this is not the right way. Please be patient, things can't be fixed in 2 days, actually, I am volunteering since one month ago and there is a lot to do and the time I could use to improve the page I am spending undoing your changes because you don't respect my position as volunteer with the page. - Thanks Saniakob 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I step out. I am no longer volunteering with this page. Feel free to take the position, it is available.

Here is my reply to your comment in Mr. Giffen's talk page....

"I stepped out. I am no longer volunteering. Offer the position of volunteering with Bach Page to Mr. Mix who thinks he can do a much better job than me...I wish he would have made something when no one was maintaining the page for years and not just now when someone else started doing the job. I worked for 10 years as manager and copyist of a music repository at a university and I thought I knew some stuff of the trade...but I guess I was wrong. Besides, you modified things in the page (adding the templates for the cantatas) and you didn't told me anything about my way of organizing things...just now when I have this discussion you tell me about CPDL rules and make me look like a fool when I try to defend my point of view with Mr. Mix. Finally, If I did not read wrong, the Adopt a composer program states clearly that there is 1 volunteer per "collaborative work" as Mr. Mix call it doesn't apply for some changing things at will... I understand collaborative work is teaching people how to make a submission to CPDL correctly (which I did) because the information given by the site is confusing....or translating pages to other languages to make CPDL more accessible to everyone (which I also did)... I know perfectly what collaborative work is. I am a professional with enough experience in my field and I won't work under this conditions. Perhaps I misunderstood what CPDL was about...if that's the case then I am to blame. Thank you."

Things are exactly as they were before I took Bach you can start the work in the way you love most...Best Regards - Saniakob 17:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Failed contributions

Hi Richard. You tried to contribute editions of two Mendelssohn pieces to CPDL on 21st July but I can't locate any files for these editions. Could you point me in the right direction, please? --Bobnotts talk 19:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure- on my contributions page I still see: and on the page Andenken, Op. 100, No. 1 (Felix Mendelssohn), as well as two more files up at Im Wald. Op. 100, No. 4 (Felix Mendelssohn). Thanks, and hope I havnt unwittingly made anything harder. Richard Mix 19:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - my mistake. I found the page Im Walde, Op. 41, No. 1 (Felix Mendelssohn) linked from the Mendelssohn page and when I didn't see your edition listed, I got confused! Nothing wrong with Andenken, Op. 100, No. 1 (Felix Mendelssohn) but Im Wald Op. 100, No. 4 (Felix Mendelssohn) was missing a catalogue number and wasn't linked to from the main Mendelssohn page. I've fixed both of those things now. Thanks --Bobnotts talk 21:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sacred feasts

Hi Richard, thanks for improving the texts of those categories, I never imagined this subject could be so complex :) —Carlos Email.gif 18:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Salve Regina

Hi Richard. Thanks for your work on this page. You'll see that I moved the external link you added to under the "external links" section. I feel that we need to draw the line somewhere, otherwise people would add any vaugely relevant links to the settings list and clutter it up. I hope that's ok with you.

Also, you asked: "should all voicings redirect as SATB does?" in an edit summary for the page. Firstly, please don't use edit summaries to ask question - they should be used to give a brief summary of the edit and nothing else. The best place to ask questions is on the forums. To answer your question, though, there's no strict rule for redirects but generally I'd say that SATB is only a redirect because it's a voicing that's used so frequently. To add links to categories quickly (without categorising the page in the category), use the "CiteCat" template, like this: {{CiteCat|SSATB}}. Regards --Bobnotts talk 15:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Text page links

Hi Richard. Thanks for all your help lately! Just thought I'd mention one thing: when you add a link to a text page from a score page, such as on Ave Maria, Op. 23, No. 2 (Felix Mendelssohn) and Laudate Dominum omnes gentes, III (Claudio Monteverdi), please try to remember to also update the text page to link back to the score page. That way, someone looking for a particular text can find all the settings of it on CW (in theory!) I've just updated the text pages for those score pages. I know it's easy to forget sometimes. Thanks again. --Bobnotts talk 12:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Declare his honour - Henry Purcell

I hope I'm adding comments to the correct page, since it's not enirely obvious how one contacts people in Choral Wiki

With regard to my reformatting of the Fowler version of this, bar 75 should have read bar 74 (and the last note of bar 73), where the bass part seems to have been transposed down by a 6th. (This is fairly obvious when you play it back. It also corresponds with bar 247 of the Callon version of O sing unto the Lord). The same transposition seems to have occurred in the bass accompaniment in bar 76.

I have corrected these (and taken the liberty of removing your error message at the same time!) I've also uploaded new versions of the .pdf, .mid and .cap files.

I've found some oddities when uploading new versions of files. Although I uploaded a revised version of the .pdf file on 7th February, the file that was there when I opened it today appeared to be the original version. I have uploaded a new version and that seems now to be the version in Choral Wiki. However, the .cap file I uploaded at the same time seems not to have been uploaded, since it is still the old file which opens.

On the question of combining this with O sing unto the Lord, that is obviously a sensible move. However, from the point of view of practical use for singers, I don't think most choirs would make much use of the full version, so I would suggest there should still be a link on the Purcell main page for "Declare his honour", which redirects to "O sing unto the Lord" Jamesgibb 10:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! A lot of useful discussion does happen on user talk pages; there are also the CPDL fora, which confusingly require a separate login even if you use the same name and password. If it's alright with you though, I'll copy the Purcell-specific discussion to Talk:O sing unto the Lord (Henry Purcell).
Thanks for the corrections and clarifications! I'm not sure about the oddities yet, but will have another look, and add the error report to Fowler.
I agree about the redirect in case anyone searches under "D". This is handled by turning subpage Declare His Honor (Henry Purcell) into a redirect. It isnt necessary to have the file in two places, as with the redundant Agnus Dei (Marc-Antoine Charpentier): here I think even a redirect to Messe de Minuit pour Noël (Marc-Antoine Charpentier) is unneeded. Richard Mix 20:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaudeamus omnes (Giacomo Battistini)‎

Hi Richard. User:Sparafucil once uploaded an edition of the work above, but the name in the score is yours! Was Sparafucil an old account you were using before registering as Richard Mix? Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten. Can you delete the account? Richard Mix 22:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Better yet, I've merged the old account into the new one, to unify your contributions. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Richard, I've noticed you 'depopulated' the liturgical music cat in favour of 'motet' on one of my contributions. As you may have noticed, there is a discussion on the forums about this issue, as yet without decisive outcome. In the case of Mondondone's "Deus in adiutorium", I disagree with your categorisation - it is an office versicle with a clear an unequivocal functional role, pretty much unimaginable in any other context. As for the stylistic issues, those remain to be debated, as you can see on the forums. Would you consider contributing to the discussion? joachim 13:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer! I'll try to sort it out what I think... I suppose though we're not in disagreement that category:Office versicles would ultimately be more easily searchable than "liturgical music"? In the meantime, we could make a Deus in ajutorium textpage (maybe just a redirect to a sub-section of Psalm 70). All the best, Richard Mix 21:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


Richard, not sure if I'm doing this the right way, since it doesn't seem immediately intuitive how to reply to comments from someone.

I suppose the psalm chants I've been adding are an anthology, in the sense that they are the ones we generally use in the choir that I belong to. The only reason that I've set them is Capella is that I got tired of illegible photocopies of words and music. Capella isn't brilliant at handling words if they are not set as lyrics under the notes, so I add the relevant text from a Word file and print the same page twice, once with the chant and once with the text. However, as I only do this when a new psalm comes to be sung, the set is not complete.

I'm not clear how (or where) I should put them if they were to be presented as an anthology. Would they still appear on the composer pages, but just with a different title?

On the small "c" for chant issue, I've been puzzled by why the link still appeared in red when I added a score, so that explains it. I haven't typed it in with an upper case C; that's provided by the dropdown list from "Add scores to CPDL". I'll correct by hand for the moment, but it might be useful if someone could alter the dropdown list eventually, to eliminate the problem automatically. Jamesgibb 10:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi James, seems right enough to me. There is a confusing choice of venues around cpdl, and a lot gets done on usertalk pages like this. I raised the dropdown bug at the operation & implementation forum (these require a second login and password) and it may be fixed already. I also proposed hashing out psalm naming conventions on the category talk page; maybe we'll be joined by others. Richard Mix 05:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Praeter rerum seriem

Hi Richard. I have to take exception with your designation of the Praeter rerum seriem (Anonymous) as being a Gregorian chant source rather than simply Anonymous. If you'll examint the setting, you'll see that it is a triple rhythm tune that is wholly inconsistent with being Gregorian chant, in spite of the text being a Marian sequence. – Chucktalk Giffen 03:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charles! Maybe we differ on a definition of "Gregorian" rather than the particulars of the piece. Rhythmisized chant is squarely in that tradition, if I may so speak, and one may consider the long-short Divinum mysterium) to be the same piece as the unmeasured notation.
But I may just be confused about the 'original' Praeter rerum. On a casual inspection, it looks like a Gregorian chant has been used as a tenor by Josquin, and that it differs in a few pitch details (second note, strain 2, and a few extra notes) from a chant book version, which can be adjusted to Josquin's rhythm. Does a different Gregorian melody exist? And did you have a mensural source for what the page calls "the Latin hymn"? Richard Mix 05:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Franz Schubert - Fünf Duette

Good morning Richard. Thank you for the cleaning of the Fünf Duette page. The problem i had with the newline character seems solved now. I can continue editing. BenZene 08:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Vidi aquam confusion


Hi Richard. I basically reverted your edits to Vidi aquam II (Anonymous), since I think you didn't check the PDFs for the two recently posted scores. Each of these postings consists of THREE settings of Vidi aquam (so perhaps calling them I and II is a bit confusing). At any rate, (I) contains the three settings (all 3-part) from tr93 (pages 5v-6r, 6v-7r, 7v-8r), and (II) contains three settings (only the middle one is 4-part) from tr88 (pp 223v-224r) and tr89 (pp 228v-229r and 229v-230r). Only the first tr89 (pp 228v-229r) is 4-part.

I checked the pdf for Vidi aquam II (Anonymous) but not looking at Vidi aquam I (Anonymous) misconstrued it as a separate work page for what I guess is Vidi aquam 5 [or maybe IIb?] (Anonymous). Thanks for the catch, and I hope you add the foliation info! Do you agree that there's something a bit wrong with the page names and that perhaps a merge if not a split is in order? Richard Mix 00:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 03:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Given the way in which the 6 settings of Vidi aquam have been published here in two groups of three each, I'm tempted to suggest that they be merged onto one page, perhaps titled something like

[[Vidi aquam, 6 settings from the Trent codices (Anonymous)]].

How do you (and others) feel about this?

Makes perfect sense to me. Richard Mix 08:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also for me. —Carlos Email.gif 14:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

La cieca (Giovanni Ghizzolo)

Richard, I'm not quite sure the canges you applied to the voicing cat on this page are for the better. Any user interested in this sort of repertoire is unlikely to search for "Amarilli" as a solo voice type, is he? Besides, to the best of my knowledge, this change would make it one of the few (if any) pages where voicing information is mixed with/replaced by content. I'm not sure that labelling, say, Bach's Matthew Passion as containing "Christ" instead of "bass solo" would be the way to move forward. Cordially, joachim 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, The names of course are "piped" and link to Category:Solo Soprano and Category:Solo Tenor. I found the former ST choir designation more confusing myself; now I hope it is clear that the chorus is SSB and the other movements are dialogues for male & female soloists, but maybe you devise something better. Btw, thanks for the Mnogaya lyeta (Traditional) lyrics! Richard Mix 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Voicing for I will worship towards thy holy temple (Arthur Sullivan)

Hi Richard. I rolled back your voicing change. I'm not sure about the separate choir specification, but, if you look at mm 104-126, you'll see that at least 7 different voices are required (albeit at most 6 sing at any one time). Because of the way the score is laid out, I'm inclined to leave the two-choir voicing (rather than 7vv SSATTBB). – Chucktalk Giffen 00:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. The layout implies choir two SA & TB each in unison. I dont suppose we can have 6|SATB.SATB, which would be my prefered version ;-) Richard Mix 03:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Say, watchman, what of the night?

Thanks for your comments, Richard. I think it almost certain that Sullivan, as an accomplished organist, would have specified organ accompaniment for a sacred work, so I must have had my mind not properly in gear to specify something else when entering the details! I've corrected the missing note in the accompaniment of bar 19 and also spotted a couple of misdirected tails, which didn't get automatically changed when I transposed it up a tone in Capella. I've reloaded updated versions of the files.

The small notes in the accompaniment are not intended to indicate rehearsal only. It's just that, by making the accompaniment small, I can get three systems on an A4 page in Capella in a readable form. (You can probably guess from this that I am a singer, rather than a keyboard player!) If the original indicates "for rehearsal only", I generally make this explicit.Jamesgibb 10:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, organists are expected to do the superhuman anyway: in this case to transpose a half step while the choir has the convenience of reading in one flat. This must have been before transposer knobs. I must say your version in G raises the bar for the minor mode passages!  ;-) Richard Mix 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The way is long and dreary

(A title that makes you frantic to sing the piece!) When I was playing this back before submitting it this morning, parts of it sounded vaguely familiar. In fact, the Douglas Walczak Agnus Dei is an extract from this longer anthem, removing the Adelaide Procter bits. So I think they should somehow be linked, but have no idea how to do it myself. Jamesgibb 11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to wade in here and suggest putting a "See also:" (or "Also see:") item at the end of the "Music files" section for each work, with links between the two works pages (and even do it myself as an example as to illustrate how to do this in the future) – until I realized that we don't have the Walczak Agnus Dei at ChoralWiki! So, instead, I would suggest simply adding a note in the "Description:" section in the Sullivan about the Walczak piece. There are several examples of the "See also:" usage – one at Advent Anthem by Douglas Brooks-Davies interlinking with my own This Advent moon (which is why I know of the technique). – Chucktalk Giffen 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Great idea Chuck, but wouldnt it logically go under General information;? Richard Mix 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hassler Ave maris stella

Hi Richard. I really don't understand your instance on duplicating information in the Edition notes for both editions that is descriptive of the work and not of the editions. I already moved the fact that the chant (and cantus firmus) is mixolydian to the Description section. Moreover, there is no musical difference between the editions: indeed, the polyphony is the same for all three even verses. It just so happens that the Kelecom edition reproduces the music three times, once for each odd verse chant and once for each verse polyphony, while the earlier edition uses the more economical route of providing the chant and polyphony once, with the verses underlaid threefold. As for the question whether the music is transposed (or not) and because both editions share the same fate on this issue, my preference in such situation at CPDL is to leave the matter of announcing "F miixolydian" in the two editions out, until such time as we have sure knowledge of any transposition from the original work (Hassler was not above transposed modes in other works). Elsewhere, when there are more than one edition transposed to the same key (along with the original or other transpositions), we usually group editions with the same transposition under a single heading, such as with If ye love me (Thomas Tallis). With this in mind, I hope you will reconsider what amounts to a restoration of your previous edits as an addition after my own edit (which was an attempt to avoid redundancy). I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the matter. – Chucktalk Giffen 01:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chuck! I'm not sure If ye love me is typical in this regard, though it is a clever solution. If there is no 'redundancy', it's not even clear the editions are at the same pitch, and we have to assume the general info has the correct original key. Thanks for prodding me, though: I'm beginning a long download of DdT to see what can be found there... Richard Mix 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Richard. Both editions are indeed "at the same pitch", 2 flats in the k.s., cantus firmus beginning on F, note values apparently halved from the original (pretty common). I do note that the Kelecom edition leaves off the 7th verse (chant, missed that previously). I'd be interested to learn what the DdT download turns up. – Chucktalk Giffen 01:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
...and the piece is in neither Cantiones Sacrae nor Sacri Concentus. A search in Grove only gets hits for soAVE and bellAVEre, so I guess we're dealing with a contrafactum. Assuming something else turns up, do we replace the edition notes "in F mixolydian" with "original key" both times? Richard Mix 01:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Palestrina Mags

Dear Richard,

Many thanks for your clarifications and alterations concerning the tricky question of Palestrina Magnificat settings - what you've done now is an immensurably better state of affairs than was in place before - many thanks indeed! Hopefully other people will latch on to the new system and either style their editions with the new clarification system or leave the editions in question open to clarification by contributors such as yourself. Unless I'm being thick, is it the case that there are multiple sections/chapters within the Magnificat octo tonum liber primus (Rome, 1591) publication (although bearing in mind the other Magnificats which were unpublished in 1591 and remain in manuscript form (although transcribed by haberl))? There was only this one publication, according to Grove, and I am unaware of any others. How is the 'book' system that you use set up? I am aware of the division of Haberl's volume into sections, but I can't remember how. Are you able to shed any light on this?

Re: Lassus Mags, if you're happy to send me facsimiles of Haberl, then I'll happily transcribe them! :-)

Also, on your own user page, you might want to update the number of scores you've contributed from 1 to the relevant number larger than 1. I wish this acted as a little counter and updated itself!

Best wishes,
Edward Tambling 09:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I was just going by [1], of which the first part is the 1591 "liber primus" (divided into odd and even), but I see that [2] doesnt list the subsequent 'liber's! I'll try downloading the forward to see if they had title pages...
... Ouf, my poor Latin, but Haberl's own Book Two title page clears things up a little: Magnificat octotonum quaternis vocibus. (liber secundus.) auctore Petraloysio Praestino nunc primum ex codice cappelae juliae ad S. Petrum Romae in partitionem redigit et edidit Fr. Xav. Haberl. A first edition! Richard Mix 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding overcounting your editions

Hi Richard. The "Whatlinkshere" template does indeed overcount editions, because it provides a list of pages with links of any kind (not just links from Sheet music pages generated by the Editor template). That is why I created the "<EditorName> editions" categories. Replacing {{Whatlinkshere}} oh your User page with {{CiteCat|Richard Mix editions|Works with editions by this editor}} will solve the problem. Be aware that this will undercount your editions if you have more than one edition listed on a given works page. But at least it provides a shorter list to check (if you suspect you have duplications, as I do). Best wishe. – Chucktalk Giffen 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little confused- There must be something missing from the template syntax Works with editions by this editor, since Category:Richard Mix editions is a blue link... Got it now, thanks! Richard Mix 02:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My bad... there should be a "|" after CiteCat, not a ":" ... sorry! I corrected the citation in my previous post above. – Chucktalk Giffen 04:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Missa quinque vocum (Mogens Pedersøn)

I think you were right in your edit summary, Richard, so I have returned the layout to a single edition incorporating all the assigned catalogue numbers in the edition notes as before. I came to this conclusion mainly because it is the same score link for all the movements. Feel free to revert. --Bobnotts talk 06:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OT post-Pentecost blunder

Hi Richard. You are entirely right - after I swapped Pentecost IX and X, I realized that you were problably right in putting X before IX for precisely the reason you gave in your edit summary. I hope you like the appearance of the wikitable format better, though. I'll make another pass through the Sundays after Pentecost to do a few cleanup and tidying chores, at least when I get a chance! Many thanks for taking on the organization of these liturgical categories. – Chucktalk Giffen 04:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the tidying, and it's just as well what I've typed in a hurry so far gets double-checked!
I've always copied code for tables from any old place I stumble across an example, but is there an official help page somewhere? I just noticed that Piae Cantiones has a sortable list, which might be handy for the Ordinary Time table. Richard Mix 10:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Verse anthem?

Hi Richard. In this edit, you labelled Hosanna to the Son of David (Orlando Gibbons) as a verse anthem. I thought I would double check we're agreed on this, as according to the Wikipedia article and my limited knowledge on the subject, this surely is not a verse anthem but a full anthem. Was your edit a mistake? I have changed it back, at least for the time being. --Bobnotts talk 19:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! I think I might have had Behold, I bring you glad tidings (Orlando Gibbons) on my mind at the time... Richard Mix 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesu, word of God incarnate in The Anthem Book

Regarding your question as to whether this was a version of Gounod's Ave Maria, my mind wasn't properly in gear, because I tend to think of that as Bach-Gounod. The answer is that it definitely isn't that, though I don't know what the original words might have been. I'll get round to submitting it shortly and check whether it matches any of the other Gounod stuff already uploaded.Jamesgibb 23:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant the other Ave of which JwoGi is the common translation. Btw, I finally brought the Methodists around to Latin by showing them how much better the English fit Elgar's setting than the Latin, and then later persuading them that, visa-versa, they didnt really want to sing "Jesu, Worduv, God incarnate" in the Mozart. Iirc, Elgar composed to a different Latin hymn originally, publishing it as Avc later. Richard Mix 23:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly my mind wasn't properly in gear when I replied. It is of course Ave Verum Corpus, rather than Ave Maria. I've actually never sung it to the English works, whether Mozart, Elgar or Byrd, so didn't immediately recognise the connection. Interesting about the Elgar being set to different text originally. I can't open the file under 7 motetten, but the music looks the same as the Ornes version on CPDL. I guess it's probably worth putting it up with English words too. James Gibb

Nice, a blue link then! Now we just have to sort out the targent page name... Richard Mix 21:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Fuerunt mihi lacrymae

Richard, you are quite right to suggest E minor rather than G for the transposed key. Rather too many D sharps for me to contradict you convincingly. I've added the actual allocation of the parts for the SATB version, which seems to chime with the Fowler TTBB allocation, though I've moved one low B in the S up an octave for convenience. I assume it's your addition of F minor to the Fowler edition, but I think it should be up a minor 2nd, not a minor third, unless you are referring to an edition I have no seen. Jamesgibb 16:06, 13 March 2011 (CDT)

I'm just guessing that d is a plausible original key, the minor third being a popular transposition for editors of English music. If you based yours on the Fowler, then that would be _down_ a minor second! Maybe better not to speculate; I'd better try to remember take a look next time I'm at the library, though. Richard Mix 16:50, 13 March 2011 (CDT)

2 cents

Richard, thank you for your comments on my talk page. I had decided not to continue replying to the gentleman of very set opinion. Regards, Paul Marchesano Marchesa 20:56, 29 April 2011 (CDT)

"Ewig Dein" - Voicing

Hi Richard, thanks for your revision. I'm pretty new on this pages. But in case you decide to perform the canon with mixed choir (for example SST), the voicing isn't equal any more. Is this a problem? bp 08:16, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

Not for me personally ;-) (A purist within earshot might take issue with the resulting 64 inversions.)
But the voicing template doesn't need to foresee every possible performance option: for a cappella works we often list AATBB in the General info. section and let editors add Category:SSATB in their Edition notes, and I see that Say, wanton, will you love me? (Thomas Weelkes) might be treated this way. Welcome to CPDL, and thanks for your editions! Richard Mix 16:30, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

tidying up duplicate page

"(Deletion log); 19:46 . . Richard Mix (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wenn alle Brünnlein fließen" (Superfluous page: duplicates Wenn alle Brünnlein fließen (Friedrich Silcher))"

Thank you Richard, this was my first submission to CPDL, now I know that when you edit the composer's page first, you get the desired Title (Composer) suggested. Regards -- KlausFoehl 17:29, 16 July 2011 (CDT)

Ich will hier bei dir stehen (arr. Glen O'Brien)

Thank you Richard for an appropriate page for the arrangement. My name is actually spelt Glenn O'Brien.Glennobrien 09:42, 2 August 2011 (CDT)

You're welcome, and very sorry about that! I noticed you already fixed a couple of things, and I've just moved the page to Ich will hier bei dir stehen (arr. Glenn O'Brien). Richard Mix 17:45, 2 August 2011 (CDT)


Hi Richard, thanks for the improvements to the page; it makes more sense indeed to have the Latin text come first. I'll see if I can improve it a bit more, putting the remaining translations in two columns. Best, —Carlos Email.gif 09:30, 7 April 2012 (CDT)

Thanks for your sharp eyes on the Greek, too; I'll ask another question on Talk:Magnificat. Richard Mix 17:42, 7 April 2012 (CDT)

Carols for Choirs

Hi Richard I am in the process of spreading sortable tables through the …for Choirs pages, and came across your suggestion to merge the Carols for Choirs pages (Carols for Choirs 1, 1 Sept, 2011).

Is this the sort of thing you had in mind?. Would it make sense to have any discussion about this here?

Peter Gibson 07:57, 7 May 2012 (CDT)

Thanks for the note! Talk:Carols for Choirs indeed makes sense. Richard Mix 00:17, 8 May 2012 (CDT)

Musica Divina transcriptions

Richard, thanks for the additional information you are adding to the Musica Divina editions I've been transcribing. I would do it myself, if I knew which categories existed!

I've also noticed that you've added an original pitch and note length version of Lassus's Dextera Domini. As a couple of people have asked that I upload "unaltered" versions as well, my intention is to go back through the stuff I've already uploaded and do just that. (It's relatively easy, since I do the transcription into original clefs and note lengths to minimise transcription mistakes, and only then make any adjustments) I'm certainly not going to duplicate work that you've already done; this is just to let you know that providing originals (with modern clefs) is high up on my to-do list.

Your email address on your CPDL page appears not to work, by the way, but perhaps I interpreted it too literally. Jamesgibb 02:29, 8 June 2012 (CDT)

I was just about to write you congratulations and also see if we can better divide up Lassus: I already have on hand a lot of the offertory motets for 4 vv: Benedic anima; Benedicam Dom.; Benedictus es...doce; Confitebor tibi; Dextera Dom.; Dom. convertere; Dom. in auxilium; Dom vivifica me; Exaltabo te; Expectans; Gressus meos; Illumina oculos; Immittet angelus; Improperium; In te speravi; Intende voci; Jubilate Deo; Lauda anima mea; Meditabor, Perfice gressus; Populum humilium; Precatus es; Scapulis suis; Sperunt in te. What a drag that we're using incompatible programs, otherwise we'd have really powerful proofreading tools!
Hotmail is what I hope the non-bots will guess, btw. ;-) Richard Mix 02:44, 8 June 2012 (CDT)

Thanks. I'll do a skim through the Lassus that is available on the Musica Divina motets and let you know which ones aren't on your list, or otherwise available on CPDL. Jamesgibb 08:52, 8 June 2012 (CDT)

Of the 20 Lassus motets that are in Musica Divina Vol II, the following don't currently appear in CPDL:

Benedicite Gentes
Domine in auxilium meum respice
Factus est Dominus firmamentum
In te speravi Domine
Joannes est nomen eius
Sperent in te omnes

I think these are all 4-part, but I haven't checked individually. There may be other motet-like things appearing in the other volumes, but I'll check that later. Given that you've already done the 4th and the 6th on the list, and assuming that you have another source anyway, I suggest that I pick the remaining 4, unless you have already started on any of them, Richard. Jamesgibb 10:12, 8 June 2012 (CDT)

Didn't notice that you had included Domine in Auxilium on your list, so I've now uploaded copies of Benedicite Gentes, Factus est Dominus firmamentum and Joannes est nomen eius. I've also uploaded a 4-part version of Eripe me, since the version currently on CPDL is a 3-part one. All at original pitch and note value secundum Proske, although I've also uploaded a transposed version of Eripe me, since it goes so low that only proper basses can get there with any confidence! Jamesgibb 10:11, 14 June 2012 (CDT)

Incomplete Editions

LOL Richard, it seems we were having similar thoughts, but posted in different places; only after opening a discussion at Template talk:IncompleteEdition I saw that you had also done it at Category talk:Incomplete editions. Please check there too! —Carlos Email.gif 19:34, 20 June 2012 (CDT)

Done, and point about thin skins taken, though inapplicable to latest new contributor, I trust. Ciao! Richard Mix 20:35, 20 June 2012 (CDT)
Hi, thanks for your comments on the template talk page. I'm still thinking about the various possibilities and will reply you soon. —Carlos Email.gif 01:47, 21 June 2012 (CDT)

Veni sponsa Christi

Good point, Richard. I actually read it as bride, but without thinking of the inappropriate connotations! Incidentally, I've noticed that some of the additions you are making in the form of "Common of..." are coming up red, presumably because the appropriate category page has yet to be created. At the moment, that's rather beyond my job group, though I hope to improve! Jamesgibb 12:14, 22 July 2012 (CDT)

You're not the first, nor was Mick the last! I should have remembered the text via Couperin's Motets de Ss Anne & Suzanne.
Even now the redlinks can be used to see what other pieces are gathered but they should of course be turned blue eventually to standardize Common of Virgins (correct, according to Palmer/Burgess) vs. Common of a Virgin (top of my head) and also to be gathered as subcategories of Common of Saints. Carlos & Chuck were very helpful with Sacred music by season and once I refresh my memory I'll have a go at the coding; in the meantime I remain in amazed admiration of your industry in making beautiful editions! Richard Mix 19:44, 22 July 2012 (CDT)

Sheppard's In manus tuas

Hi Richard, thanks for making the titles uniform. I was thinking that perhaps we could rename all three of them to the usual In manus tuas I, II and III, what do you think? —Carlos (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2012 (CDT)

Yes, that would be more in line with prevailing practice and I considered it; on the other hand, it suggests that the non-parenthetical roman numeral is part of the original title, or at least a generally accepted numbering. I don't know if that is in fact the case... Are you aware of any previous discussions towards a cpdl style manual? At present we have:
  • title a N (composer) where it is possible to disambiguate by number of voices
  • title (composer) (voci (im-)pari) where there are mixed- and 'equal-' (better unmixed?) voice versions
  • Magnificat N toni (composer) ((im-)pari) for alternatim settings
All the above convey a lot of information to browsers of categories and have some historical precedent as well. Then we have:
  • Agnus Dei III (anonymous) which might mean "...dona nobis pacem", or the third such title in order of the Trent codices, or maybe the second, with another ms. source having already claimed I or II, or even the full title given by a composer (as in Ann Callaway's Agnus dei I, listed as Agnus Dei 1 in the Arsis Press catalogue). (2nd setting) is a bit anglophone-centric, but I do at least like the parentheses.
Thanks for raising this issue! Richard Mix (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (CDT)
Richard, when I started editing on CPDL the current standards were pretty much established already, but I guess some older discussion can be found on this subject if one searches in the CW:BB or in the forums. The practice has been to add II (III etc.) to the title when a different setting of an otherwise homonym work is added. Regarding the use of parentheses to isolate the numbering, as in Agnus Dei (III), I believe it's a matter of personal taste. I particularly would never confuse Agnus Dei III with its third repetition :) I also prefer Roman numerals to Arabic ones. Best, —Carlos (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2012 (CDT)

Funerary works

Hi Richard, Jonathan has suggested to create a category under this title, but I confess that I'm not knowledgeable enough on this subject to help him. Your opinion would be appreciated on my talk page. Thanks, —Carlos (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2012 (CST)


I see that you introduced a new genre entry without any problem; way to go! —Carlos (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2012 (CST)

I was given very helpful hints! Richard Mix (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2012 (CST)

Lumen ad revelationem

Richard, thanks for correcting the category on this. I must say I was at something of a loss to think of how one would use a bit of the Nunc dimittis liturgically. Jamesgibb (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks also for the corrections you made to Dominica in Palmis! —Carlos (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edition of Victimae paschali laudes by Orlando di Lasso

Hi Richard, I'm working on this piece and I would like to check with you the last note of bass on bar 59 (G, syllable "Ma"). The Sämtliche Werke (Neue Reihe) edition published by Bärenreiter appears to have an F instead. Could you please confirm that the G is OK? Thank you. Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't remember if it was an editorial choice or in whatever source I used then; the F seems implausible though. Richard Mix (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the prompt reply. I'll use the G then. Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

LinkText alternative text for link display

Hi Richard. I saw your query on Template talk:LinkText and have added a fix for that (just add new field "alt=Psalm 147 (vulgata)" to get "Psalm 147 (vulgata)" displayed as the link. I haven't documented it yet or expanded its functionality for more than one link yet, but you raised a good point that was easy to fix!   Chucktalk Giffen 14:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Very neat, thanks! Richard Mix (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

S S Wesley Magnificat in E

Hi, Richard. I agree that FF is more likely than EE in the Alto, bar 5, since ATB are otherwise in unison (or octaves). I've changed my edition accordingly. It would be good to get hold of an original source, but I can't find one on the web at all. Until then, at least my edition is usable, which the John Henry Fowler one wasn't! Jamesgibb (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Purcell anthems

Richard, thank you for your useful additions to the Purcell anthems I've been uploading recently. Much appreciated. You may be able to help with a piece of notation that occasionally appears in the source document. This is :S:. My guess is that it is a form of repeat mark, but I have failed to find any confirmation of this, either on the internet, or in a couple of musical dictionaries that I've looked at. Jamesgibb (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll look later if there's a facsim. link; John Gosling uses something a bit like that for a trill. Richard Mix (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, pp36-7 is indeed no ornament but a segno. If two minim rests are understood it could work as a petit reprise. Richard Mix (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard, thanks for that useful link. You'll notice from my most recent upload that I've added the Z number. When I get time, I'll go through the Purcell page and add the Z numbers to the other editions. Incidentally, the one I have just uploaded is the last one in the facsimile I was working from, so there will now be a hiatus, as far as Purcell is concerned! Jamesgibb (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal music

Hi Richard, I've just created ChoralWiki:Seasonal music in order to simplify your weekly updates. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 15:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I can remember where to go in the future, and that's editable by non-admins who might want to take over, probably a good thing. Since it's less intuitive how to edit the Main page, should there be a pointer on Talk:? There's a little more on User talk:CHGiffen#Main page. Richard Mix (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richard, what did you have in mind when you proposed to automate this page? Should it be updated on a monthly basis, or is it preferable on a weekly basis? In that case, which day of the week would be best for the updates? If you already have an idea of what should be displayed on each month (or week), please post it on ChoralWiki talk:Seasonal music and I'll take care of the rest. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 03:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Deus in adjutorium/Domine ad adjuvandum

Richard, I think you may not have fully appreciated to muddle I was trying to sort out! The Domine ad adjuvandum page was created by me in my first attempt to tidy up the text pages. That was before I related it properly to the Deus in adjutorium page, which makes it clear that the source text is the same. Some versions of Domine ad adjuvandum appeared on both text pages, some on neither. As a first step, putting everything on the same page seemed sensible. (This is of course about the Vespers versicle; there is also a separate page for the introit which draws on the same text.)

I think it's at least arguable that two separate text pages might be better, though there would need to be clear cross links, as with Tantum ergo and Pange lingua. So your views on how best to do this, given your detailed understanding of the minutiae of Roman Catholic liturgy, would be welcome.
Jamesgibb (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm often in a muddle myself ;-) I think you did well to make a single page and regard them as the same text, and I imagine "Domine ad" settings would normally be preceded by an intoned "Deus in". I would urge though that non-standard versions be left on the work pages: One should be able learn that Gastoldi has some weird verse by looking at this page, and later someone can figure out what's up. Lasso's Offertory uses the Gradual's non-vulgate translation of Ps. 40 (If you want to really set your head spinning look at WP's Latin psalters article). All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

cat vs vcat

Hi Richard, just a quick reminder: when linking to a voicing category as you did here, please remember to use {{vcat}} instead of {{cat}}. Otherwise the work may not be locatable by the Multi-Category Search when that specific voicing is searched for. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 03:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Nunc dimittis

Hi Richard. Could you explain what it is you were doing with the Nunc dimittis page? As near as I can tell, if you were trying to collect together settings that have been paired with a Magnificat (for Choral Evensong use in the Anglican tradition) and separate out all the others, then from what I can tell, the work is incomplete. On the other hand, an isolate Nunc dimittis (or Magnificat) could just as well be intended as a part of an "Evening Service" – as my own setting is (and now appears orphaned along with a couple of other settings below the "Evening Service" list, and the same goes for the Mundy setting which was evidently intended for Anglican use. Any clarification (and cleanup) would be appreciated. Thanks! – Chucktalk Giffen 23:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure; besides the self explanatory part, the 3 orphans are: *Nunc dimittis (Charles H. Giffen), Nunc Dimittis Canonico Johannes (Harrison Hackett), and Nunc Dimittis (William Mundy). I didn't have enough information handy to decide to which they belonged, but didn't think to add a cleanup tag. Does the Mundy then have an accompanying Mag.? Richard Mix (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if the Mundy has a matching, but I'd be surprised if it didn't. What about the Tim Risher, which has no matching Mag listed (as far as I can tell)? This aside, I wonder why the category Evening Canticles already does (or should do) the classification you're seeking. Are you planning to do the same thing to the Magnificat page? – Chucktalk Giffen 00:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
(I did find the Mundy.) As I recall, I was interested in Latin settings at the time, and winnowing out "In English, as Part of an Evening Service" seemed a good idea. If you have thoughts on organizing the page, let's move to Talk:Nunc dimittis, though. Richard Mix (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Pange Lingua

Thanks for your note, Richard.

No, there is no intention of recombining the Tantum ergo and Pange lingua pages. You may recall that there was a discussion about this a year or more back and the consensus was that a split would be appropriate, given the large number of settings and the different liturgical uses - you will know much more about the latter than I do!

There was an earlier discussion, which again you may recall, about whether the list of works on the text pages should be created automatically, (which is efficient, but cannot include information useful to the searcher, like voicing, or what parts of the text are used in a particular edition) or manually. The disadvantage of the manual list is that editors may neglect to add the relevant details to the text page.

Carlos has come up with a neat solution, which lists those editions which refer to the text page but do not appear in the manual list. There are two reasons for items being on that list; the obvious one, that the editor has neglected to add it, and a subtler one, that the name of the works page has been altered in some way, without all the relevant links being checked and altered accordingly.

What I have been doing when I come upon a page with a "missing items" list is to make the necessary manual additions, and adjustments to works page links that have been changed.
Jamesgibb (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I heard a voice from heaven - Tomkins

Richard, thanks for spotting that. I think what must have happened is that I've inadvertently deleted the Tomkins files while thinking they were the Goss or Morley settings, since I hadn't included the composer name in the file name. I've taken the opportunity to do a bit of tidying - the version I had originally done now looks rather cramped - but it should all be there now. Jamesgibb (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Ich hebe meine Augen SWV 31

Richard, thanks for spotting the duplicated title. I'm not sure where it came from and deleting it caused some difficulty. However, now sorted, so I've removed the score error message.

On musica ficta, yes, you have interpreted it correctly. The only possible confusion might be that, in the source, the figured bass is also written above the stave and that has accidentals in it too. Jamesgibb (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I suppose so! Have you seen those Italian prints where the 'accidental' is on the staff but, when one peers closely enough, centered on the line or space a third above the bass note? Richard Mix (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Richard, in case you are not 'watching' my talk page, I've replied to your latest query about Ad te levavi animam meam there, to keep the thread together. Jamesgibb (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Da pacem, Domine

Hi Richard! I noticed that you moved this text page to the comma-less form. There are around 4-5 work titles that use the version with comma; should we standardize them by removing the comma? —Carlos Email.gif 01:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless a NoTi(tle) template for text pages is being contemplated. Work titles can follow the composer's (or even editor's) usage, while uniform text page title style (borrowed from Solsmes indexing style) is just to take some guesswork out of adding LinkText|unpunctuated title. For that reason I'd still like to do something about the red Solo soprano and the ridiculously cumbersome to remember hymn meter names. Richard Mix (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
OK! I sometimes add commas to titles if I think it'll clarify their meaning, but I agree that for Latin this is not so common or even necessary. Regarding hymn meter names, this is a somewhat cryptic subject to me, sorry for not being able to contribute to the discussion. —Carlos Email.gif 22:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Seid Barmherzig (Heinrich Schütz)

Unfortunately not, Richard. That was my initial thought, but bars 198-210 are different, although the notes are often the same. So I've rolled back your edit. Jamesgibb (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

O sacramentum pietatis

Hi Richard! After creating a text page for O sacramentum pietatis, I noticed that the text used by Charpentier is completely different. Maybe you (or James?) could help identify the source of this second text? And how can we properly differentiate both titles, in your opinion? Thanks! —Carlos (talk) Email.gif 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Tota pulchra es (Gregorian chant)

Hi, Richard. You removed the 'Broken link' tag of this edition/page. It's a link to the Abel DiMarco's site, where we find two links: one for Palestrina and the other for Lassus. Where do we have to go to find the score? Please help the users. Claude (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claude; sorry, I don't quite understand: I can click the link to Abel's site, click on T, get:
  • Tantum ergo. Partitura
  • Te lucis ante terminum. Partitura
  • Tollite portas. Partitura
  • Tota pulchra es. Partitura
  • Tu es qui venturus es?. Partitura
  • Turba multa. Partitura
then (on the third try) clicking on Tota pulcra I get the advertised file with the Gregorian chant. Is there perhaps a different page that has ambiguous links? Richard Mix (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Richard. It's weird, when I click on T, get:
• Tota Pulchra es. Lassus (2 v. i.) Partitura
• Tota pulchra es. Palestrina (Coro 5 v.m.) Partitura
the page is that one:
BTW, I don't see how I could merge pages according to your suggestion here because I don't find the same underlay text, nor the same music. ;-) Claude (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Weird indeed! There seem to be separate indexes for chant and polyphony. From your page I was finally able to click my way to The trick is to use the lower of the two indexes. Shall I revise the link on  ?
I don't remember what I was thinking about on the Luciani page, though. Richard Mix (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello guys! I, just like Richard, was only looking at the lower index that pointed to the correct work on that same page. Only now I noticed the other indexes above that lead to another page with polyphonic works. I've tweaked the Website template so that now it adds the index automatically, based on work title (#T in this case). How do you like it? —Carlos (talk) Email.gif 03:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
That's great, thanks. Claude (talk) 07:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Richard. Thanks for your (belated) welcome. And thanks for your kind words about my edition. D-fished (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Vater Abraham

Richard, thanks for spotting that I don't know the range of a concert flute! I've altered the files so that the second flute is an alto flute, duly transposing the notes and changing the description accordingly.Jamesgibb (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

nonbot seeking dothint

hey richard! giovanni.cervo or senza punto at the thermodynamix postmastery?
k regards
Tulipo Petressian 19:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't own a dictionary with the word "dothint", sorry! Richard Mix (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
sorry too, but the dothint wasn't even in the question. which was: please give me a clue about whether or not there would be a dot between name and surname in your mail address! Tulipo Petressian 08:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I'm a little slow today; the spell-checker even suggested dot hint. Only one dot, between [appropriate substitution]mail and com.Richard Mix (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
phew, confusing botphobian riddling! allow me some slow thinking as well: I had no doubts about the dot between mail and com, so you are telling me there is no other dot, only a nondot between john and doe?! Tulipo Petressian 18:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
LOL, I'm loving this! "Talk nerdy to me." :)
That's it, Tulipo, no dots between john & doe. —Carlos (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
bravo, don c! (or would you prefer nondon?) Tulipo Petressian 19:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

work titles in quotes

hi richard! just noticed that putting work titles in quotes, as you proposed in "Pour forth no more" from Jephtha HWV 70 (to add the jeptha source info) has the downside of putting them out of their expected alphabetical order, thus making them impossible to find if looking by initial character. Tulipo Petressian 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A similar discussion is underway at Talk:Gloria all'Egitto (Triumphal scene from Aida) (Giuseppe Verdi), but unfortunately we haven't yet come up with a solution that pleases everybody. I also prefer to avoid beginning titles with quotes, for technical reasons other than the sorting issue you cite. —Carlos (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
We avoid quotes in titles and there are now two movements edited, which I merged on the work page I created. Is that Ok? Claude (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
hi claude. for me,frankly: not ok. I would say the song title should be mentioned on the jephtha page, and indexed(is that the terminus techn.?). as it is now, typing "pour forth" into the search engine delivers no result. if you don't know that the aria is from jephtha, you're not going to find it on the site... cheers, Tulipo Petressian 08:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I have added movements titles on the work page. Claude (talk) 09:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thanks claude. still not content, though. the situation on the jephtha work "page is more clear now. search for "laud her, all" indeed leads to the work page (in larger works it would be ok if the link even goes to the song location in the work page). search for "pour forth" on the other hand does offer "Pour forth no more etc", this link however redirects in a cul de sac.. thanks for your trouble so far, regards Tulipo Petressian 11:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
No cul de sac anymore ;-) Claude (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Billings' Funeral Anthem

Hello Richard, You're right about the text being very similar to the Book of Common Prayer. I didn't know there was a text page for this, I should have searched for it, my mistake. Probably because I've never used the BCP -- I need to become more aware of such things. I do think the link should be in {{LinkText|}} format, though, and I have changed it to that, as well as put the texts in columns, so the user can see the similarity. By the way, I have sung this anthem at several Sacred Harp conventions and singings (no. 320 in the book. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the columns look very elegant! Richard Mix (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Lord, to thee I make my moan (1592) (John Dowland)

Hi, Richard. I'm confused about the changes you made to this page. When I look at his 1597 tune, it is completely different from 1592. So mentioning that in the title is confusing, I think. That's why I distinguished the pages with dates. I think the publication date should be for the tune, which is 1542, while mentioning the harmonization date of 1592 in the description. You're right, though, I forgot to cite Este's psalter, I will do that. — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I was meaning to decrease confusion, so sorry about that! When two works by the same composer share a title they should be disambiguated and linked to each other. This is usually done in the Title: field, as for example in Salve Regina (I) (Francisco Guerrero). In Cantata BWV 4 - Christ lag in Todesbanden (Johann Sebastian Bach) you'll see that the publication date is not that of Luther's chorale but of JSB's cantata. If it's alright, let's take the more specific discussion to Talk:Lord, to thee I make my moan (1592) (John Dowland). Richard Mix (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Asperges me

Hi Richard. I've really no idea what I'm doing in this environment, but I've replied to your message on my talk page (I think!)


Michael Haydn Salve Regina December 2016

Richard, Please note that the two uploads from me are different works by Michael Haydn and also different from the otherss Salve Reginas on your site - there are two others on the page. MH30 in B flat is a totally different work from MH29 in C it is not a transposition! Can you undo your edits? I will be uploading another 4 Salve Reginas (now MH31-MH34) all are different works. I think it would be good however to keep them on the same page. Malcolm Crowe

This means that now the Michael Haydn works on this page are my two and Manfred Hossl's upload (all of them have instrumental accompaniment). The other two are the misattributed a capella work., and should not be here at all.

Hi Malcolm,
Your editions are much appreciated and I look forward to more! Work pages should have a single work (or versions of a single work) and when several share a title there needs to be a disambiguation page (see for example Salve Regina (Orlando di Lasso). The new pages would have names like Salve Regina, MH 29 (Johann Michael Haydn) (or if you think it better Salve Regina in C, MH 29 (Johann Michael Haydn)) and list general information (publication, orchestration &c) specific to that setting. I'd be happy to pitch in, maybe a bit later. Richard Mix (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Correct a work title?

Hi Richard! I just posted a new work and wrote "Se Tu Signore ..." as the title when it should have been "Sei Tu ..." Could you remedy? Sorry about the trouble.Brian Marble (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Brian. No trouble. Done, Claude (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Tota pulchra es/Tota pulchra es, amica mea CLEANUP

Hello Richard, I have done some cleanup work on these two pages, as per your request here and here. Since there are two different texts with the same three-word incipit, I deleted the score links on the incorrect pages and added them to the correct ones, then removed links to works that have a variant text. I also removed the General Information and the faulty translation from Wikipedia, replacing the translation with the one from the Parish Book of Chant. I don't know how to prevent the auto-generated settings list from showing works that don't match the texts. Shall I remove the cleanup/merge requests? Winglet (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I was simultaneously writing you! There are many more than 2 texts, alas. I've checked and added text to Tota_pulchra_es_(Giovanni_Pierluigi_da_Palestrina) and suggest we keep working together along the same lines till we get a picture of which texts fall into related groups. Richard Mix (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I made a list of all the settings and their texts. [3] Does that help? And after looking in the Cantus Varii posted recently, I found that two of the texts most commonly set appear to be antiphons from the Divine Office, and I highlighted them in the doc. One Tota pulchra es is for Immaculate Conception but I can't identify the other Tota pulchra es, amica mea. (I found both of these in the Cantus Varii that was recently posted on the Musica Sacra forum.) Perhaps text pages can be made for these two and any significant variations should just be listed on the work page.Winglet (talk) 02:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The Googledoc is very helpful indeed! I think two pages as you suggested work well. I moved one to Tota pulchra es Maria (for textpage names I've always tried be consistent and avoid punctuation, as in the Solesmes indices) and left a disambiguation page Tota pulchra es for things that fall through the cracks, but Tota pulchra es, amica mea covers most cases just as you suggested. I listed some as abbreviations of the common (re)ordering of verses, and others below as "variants". And a belated welcome to CPDL! Richard Mix (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I found a print copy of the SA Lassus version! I will be scanning it soon. It matches the text at Tota pulchra es Maria. Thanks for the note on Solesmes punctuation.Winglet (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear Richard (and Winglet), Thanks for your efforts to sort out the many and various 'Tota pulchra es' texts and settings. Unfortunately my recently posted edition of an anonymous setting from an Alamire manuscript dated before 1516 is now indicated as being for TTBB. In fact I intended to describe it as being for STTB, although the second line down is occasionally way up in the alto range. The third line appears in the bass clef in my edition, but I probably only did it that way in a moment of perversity. Mick Swithinbank

Hi & thanks for this one of many other fine editions! CPDL voicing categorization is, let us say, according to non-rigorous criteria, and your edition's inclusion of chiavette info (C1/G2, C2/C1, C3, F3) is something I find highly laudable and wish could be included in a database. There's some discussion scattered between Category talk:Voicing and its subpages, and User:Aristotle Aure Esguerra's page has has a table with ranges for his own editions.
As for Tota pulchra es (MS Royal 8.g.vii) (Anonymous), ATBB seems to me a closer fit for your transposition (top voice b-e"), but you'll note that Template:Voicing adds the word "or" for commas, so please feel free to edit further! Richard Mix (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Corporis mysterium (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina)

Hi,Richard, I just saw you added a cleanup notice there. Just before, Joachim asked me to restore a not-linked file from the same editor, file that he ovewrote: Palestrina-Dei_mater_alma.pdf. Just my two cents. Claude (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but I might still be a little confused.
I just realized too that the answer to my query was only a google search away: Palestrina sets odd hymn verses, with the polyphony beginning at the 2nd line, so the titles are Pange lingua and Ave maris. There are then 2 additional editions to add to Ave maris stella (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina), if or when the add works form for the 2 Dei mater alma files has been run.
How exactly did Corporis mysterium (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina) get tangled up in this? The Text and translations section gives Dei mater and the edition notes has the correct page numbers for Dei mater. There's already a page for Pange lingua (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina) but seems to already have something else; I'm not sure what I'm looking at or whether a disambiguation page is needed... Cheers, Richard Mix (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Richard, I've just uploaded a version of this from the same source. Clearly it is supposed to have and introductory plainsong Pange lingua. HOwever, the harmony is entirely different from the existing Palestrina Pange Lingua so I've moved it to Pange lingua II. Jamesgibb (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Stanford Thanksgiving Te Deum

I think you are right on this, although it's normally played in free rhythm. The Gibson edition agrees with you too. (This is of course an excerpt, not the whole thing). I've uploaded revised files and removed the ScoreError. Incidentally, the Gibson edition states it is Op. 143 and the publications date would seem to support this, so I've added the Op. no. to the page name.
Jamesgibb (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Sortable list of Josquin des Prez compositions

Hi Richard, I did a few simple edits on the first table on this page, to try to help you along a bit. I hope this was helpful. A great idea, this page – Barry Johnston (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, and feel most welcome to tinker. I got into a little trouble by starting with IMSLP's Smijers contents table instead of from scratch but the artifacts can eventually be cleaned up.
The hard part will be keeping up with new editions. Speaking of great ideas, Template:CheckMissing uses the page name, doesn't it? \Could it have an optional parameter to make it compare the list with cat|Josquin des Prez compositions? Richard Mix (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on your idea, it might take a few days. By the way, in constructing such tables, I find it convenient to start with a table in a word processor or spreadsheet, get it the way I want it, then convert it to MediaWiki language. You can see an example here, that eventually became the table in Divine and Moral Songs for Children (Isaac Watts). – Barry Johnston (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The new template is on this page, and I have tested it. Let me know if it works for you.
If I may make a suggestion, this would work better if you remove the links from the comments section. The work being referenced can still be named, just not linked. Unfortunately, the template can't tell the difference between columns of the table, and the idea is to test whether the work is in the Title column, right? – Barry Johnston (talk) 19:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Copy-paste-tweek is so tempting though ;-) Template looks good! I'm not worried about see Nymphes des bois &c since we already know the principal entries are linked. I assume linking to Sortable list of Josquin des Prez compositions#Nymphes des bois is impracticable, and unlinked makes for having to click the alphabetical sort button. Richard Mix (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

What wondrous love is this

Hello Richard, I see you changed the text version from Zion Songster to be in parallel with the other two versions. I was trying to show that the first two were written in meter 66. 63. 66. 66. 63, but in Zion Songster the words are written in meter 12 9. 12 12 9. I should have added the meter to the heading of each column, to be more explicit. But it does look better the way you did it. – Barry Johnston (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I now guess the Songster had the text (or extra verses?) laid out with fewer line divisions than the other two! I've always seen this indexed under "peculiar meter" though. Richard Mix (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Peculiar Meter is one way to categorize it, but this meter happens to be famous, with literature written about it (see More Tunes in The Captain Kidd Meter here). – Barry Johnston (talk) 13:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Still on the counting of sundays in Pentecost

Hi Richard, I'm really confused about this subject! On Pentecost IX we are informed that it's the "9th Sunday after Pentecost, [which] corresponds to the 16th Sunday in Ordinary Time". Then, on Pentecost X, we read that it's the "10th Sunday after Pentecost, [which] corresponds to the 15th Sunday in Ordinary Time". In the current order at ChoralWiki:Seasonal music, the 10th Sunday after Pentecost is coming before the 9th. However, on this site, the 9th, 10th and 11th sundays are in normal sequence. Could you please explain the logic behind this apparent contradiction? Thanks! —Carlos (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, there's a little explaining in some of the page history edit summaries, another reordering being Easter 3 & 4 vs. post-Easter 3 & 2. The Methodist planner muddles things even further with "Week 1" [of August] corresponding to the 9th Sunday after the 2019 date of Pentecost, but using the pericope corresponding to "Proper 14" ("Ordinary Time 19" or Pentecost XIII, the Gospel from Luke 12:32- ) and not to the pre-1970 Domenica ix post-P. In the calendar I've been assuming users of the Catholic Extraordinary Form and the 1962 books will know how to count from the date of Pentecost in the current year and instead catered to users of the revised three-year lectionary pericopes for "This Sunday"; it's possible that (not having worked in a Protestant job for a while) I've missed a few further divergences. Now I'm going to sit still for a minute before standing up and trying to walk ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see! A couple of texts have had their sequence rearranged in different traditions over time. That's fine, then! After that explanation, I think I'll let the Seasonal music page rest still. :) —Carlos (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
But I don't understand why the tenth should be before the ninth. So I give up because I can't translate into French anymore things I can't understand. Claude (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please have a look at Category:Sundays after Pentecost: I've done there what I can for now, and hope that's a prominent enough page for the information. Richard Mix (talk) 07:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Anthology of Italian song

Hi Richard, I see you are re-formatting this page. The situation (volumes and editions together) is one I have recognized as needing resolution. I need to rewrite Template:Volumes and MultiPubList to accommodate these (there are about 12 so far). If you don't mind, I will put Anthology of Italian song on my list for revision. It might take a week or two, this look like a moderately complex revision. I'm thinking of creaing a form to help users through situations like this. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

By all means! I'm done there except for adding a tag for moving the page to Arie antiche. Richard Mix (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The red wine flows (Pearsall)

Thanks for pointing that out, Richard. It was only on the first stave as it happens, which makes it a bit odd. However, I also noted that the LH was missing from the final stave as well! (Must have been a late-night effect). Corrected files now uploaded.Jamesgibb (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Acapella or organ - Missa ferialis upon divers anthems

Hi Richard, thanks for fixing up my edition page, I don't really know how to put in hyperlinks properly. This edition could be either accompanied or unaccompanied but I don't know how to put in the correct links to show that. Would you mind fixing it up for me? Cheers, Will. Wevans (talk) 10:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure; you can probably see how I went about it, but might also be interested in a recent discussion about whether there could be a more elegant way at Template talk:Instruments#"Keyboard reduction". All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

O say what nymph (Palestrina)

Richard, thank you for identifying the original madrigal. The English text is a very rough translation, so it falls in the grey area between a direct translation and a contrafactum. On balance, I'm happy for it to be merged, provided my page is not deleted, but has a redirect on it, so that anyone searching for this English version. without knowing the Italian source, can find it easily.Jamesgibb (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree about the redirect. It's also useful to know about versions such as Musica Transalpina &c, which I've added to the Luca Marenzio composer page: presumably a user specifically searching for :En versions would browse the publication pages rather than an already lengthy work list. Cheers, Richard Mix (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Redirect or rename

Hi, Richard, by that change, you've just lost the score info, the link to the MXL file I had just built and linked, and the whole underlay text in its 'Text template'. If you had just renamed the page, replacing 'clear' by 'clere' in the page title and kept the 'keep a redirect page' checkbox tagged, you shouldn't have suffered any loss, and so me. Claude (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry Claude, I didn't notice your edits and thought I was just replacing a page that duplicated the already existing "clere"; if I'd renamed I would have had to overwrite that one. I hope it's not wasn't great trouble to paste from the redirect's history. Richard Mix (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Valls magnificat

Thanks for your help Richard Jgoodliffe (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't mention it; your editions are always a pleasure. Richard Mix (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Magnificats in "Dorian" mode


I am sorry to trouble you again, but would you mind changing the title of two further works by Valls, the "Magnificat a 6 in Dorian mode" which should be renamed "Magnificat a 6 secundi toni" and the "Magnificat in Dorian Mode" which should be renamed the "Magnificat a 8 secundi toni". This is because we have worked out that "toni" refers not to what we would call "mode" but to the Magnificat tones.

Many thanks for all your help

Jonathan Jgoodliffe (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure! (you might well be looking at something different but on my interface there's a tab labeled "More" just left of the Search box which will bring up Delete, Move, Protect options.) I'd forgotten about Category:Works by musical mode! Richard Mix (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Richard. When, as an ordinary user, when I click on "more" I just get the option to move, not to delete or amend.

I will think about using the musical mode category, although Valls sometimes says a work is in the second tone or mode when it is actually just in D.

Jonathan Jgoodliffe (talk) 06:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Devoti ac sacri per totum annum hymni (Jan Le Febure)

Hi Richard, I've recently submitted few Sabine Cassola's editions from Devoti ac sacri per totum annum hymni by Jan Le Febure, and I noticed your remark on Devoti ac sacri per totum annum hymni 1-3 (Jan Le Febure) about splitting or merging. Sabine Cassola decided to split the whole collection (almost 100 pieces) into 26 separate editions, each edition containing few pieces. I think we have to respect her choice, while we are free to arrange editions into one or more work pages. What do you think would be best? Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

If she balks at one-file-per-piece then merge is the way to go, I guess. But I'm happy to continue at Talk:Devoti ac sacri per totum annum hymni 1-3 (Jan Le Febure). Richard Mix (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Requiem Graduale

Hi Richard, I noticed what you did here (and in three other similar works) and corrected the template making it point to a newly created redirect, In memoria. Do you like this solution or would you rather use "Gr: Requiem aeternam" instead? —Carlos (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Very nice to point to Requiem aeternam#Gradual: In memoria! I think print culture people would still expect to find it under R, so maybe a terse "Gr: Requiem" would be best. Thanks for the endless tweeking! Richard Mix (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Your suggestion is the ideal, but I can't find an easy way to implement it without introducing yet another parameter to the template. Here are a couple of alternatives:
  1. Make the Gradual always visible and linking to Requiem aeternam#Gradual: In memoria by default. When not required, the Gradual could be hidden by using |Gr=, and alternate texts could be set with |Gr=<alt text>
  2. Create alternative redirects such as Requiem ... In memoria or Requiem (In memoria), to be used in place of In memoria.
Carlos (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
3. A redirect page Gr: ''Requiem'', or if : & ' are a problem Requiem (gradual)? There inclusion of the Gradual is rare enough that one could just get used to typing, though.
I've noticed Agenda Defunctorum - Ad Missam (Juan Vasquez) explodes my theory that Si ambulem/Sicut and Requiem/Absolve are always pairs. Richard Mix (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The Gr. is a fixed text in the template, so a redirect named Gr: Requiem would duplicate it. Maybe it's better to stick to the simpler Requiem aeternam.
I saw your questioning in Vasquez' Agenda about whether it has two Tracts, and was about to add that option to the template, but then I saw in Juan Vásquez #Listado completo de obrasLink to the Spanish Wikipedia article that the Absolve Domine is the closing antiphon, not a tract. —Carlos (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Richard Mix moved page As on the night (Song 46) (Orlando Gibbons) to As on the night (Song 47) (Orlando Gibbons): "As on the night" doesn't need disambiguation; rather tune needs ID undo

Hi, you just changed the number for that Gibbons song; you didn't let me enough time to finish the details, so I had to type them again!
Well, after two years working on the messy issue of these Songs, I think it is not a good idea to change the number, because 1) Wither's/Gibbons' Song 47's title is not As on the night, 2) people looking for As on the night know it as Song 46, rightly because it is its numbering in the 1623 Hymnes; 3) the right music for Song 46 is not only the music for Song 47, but also the music for song 34; 4) there are so many tune reuse in Wither/Gibbons Hymnes ("Sing this as the ... Song"). Pierre chepelov (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pierre,
Sorry about the edit conflict; I use preview to save my typing but there is also a template described at ChoralWiki:Making a series of page edits?.
The confusion seems to be between Gibbon's SONG 47 (as the principal tune is known) and Wither's "Song 46" (the text beginning "As on the night", to which CPDL#20816 adds the refrain from "A song of joy"). Can we continue on Talk:As on the night (Song 47) (Orlando Gibbons)? Richard Mix (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Missa Clementina I

Hi Richard, yes, I would appreciate if you could merge my new edition of Missa Clementina I with the previous ones and change the name? Thanks, Will Wevans (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Request removal of edition?

Hi Richard, I have uploaded a score which I thought was by Leonardo Leo but have subsequently found out is by Durante. I would like to remove the Messa a 4 by Leo and replace it with an revised edition. Could you please tell me how to do this? Cheers, Will Wevans (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, a very nice edition. You could move the page to a new name (under the "more" tab; this leaves the page history intact) and then go to the file page File:Leo, Messa a 4 - Score.pdf and use the "Upload a new version of this file" button. Then, if it's annoying to have the file still named "Leo, Messa…" you can go further and move that page as well and edit the work page link (change [[Media:Leo,_Messa_a_4_-_Score.pdf|{{pdf}}]] to [[Media:Durante,_Messa_a_4_-_Score.pdf|{{pdf}}]] or some such). I'll add Messa a 4 (Leonardo Leo) to my watchlist and am happy to help if you encounter any difficulties! Richard Mix (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richard, thanks very much for that. I have renamed the file and moved the pages, I would appreciate it if you could please check everything has gone where it needs to go? Cheers, WillWevans (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

ChoralWiki:Seasonal music again!

Hi Richard, You need to change the dates in ChoralWiki:Seasonal music for 2022. For example, this Sunday is not Jan. 10. I could change the Sunday dates if you wish, but I have no idea of the other dates. Happy New Year to you! I pray it is a better one for you. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Barry, Yes, I noticed things were a little off even last week; please do go ahead and fix the dates and I'll see about the Easter cycle later. I trust you meant better than 2021 for all of us rather than better than for you, and wish you all the best in any case! Richard Mix (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I have changed the dates of all the Sundays in 2022. And all the best to you too. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Barry, Please have a look at what I attempted and see if there's a way to salvage comments that doesn't mess up the main page. Richard Mix (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you gave up after a while, apparently because you couldn't see the results. So I created a test page for you: ChoralWiki:Seasonal music/Test. See what you think. If you open up ChoralWiki:Seasonal music in a separate tab and save your edits, then switch back to the test page and refresh it, you get your new results. I haven't finished making all the edits I should, I thought I would let you see if this helps. — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; there's now a 1-line glitch, but more concerning is that it doesn't look like the switch gets restarted at Lent. I'm sincerely flattered to receive posts that start "You need to" ;-) but I think it's important that anyone be able to understand the code and take over if need be, hence my added comments which I assume broke things in the first place. If you have additional time later I wish you'd respond to ChoralWiki_talk:Seasonal_music#Automation_redux. Richard Mix (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not your comments (instructions) that "broke things", but rather attention to little details which turn out to have big consequences, such as where (and if) closing brackets are placed or inclusion of superfluous lines. Also, looking at Week 8, you decided to change the usual conventions in several ways (not starting a week with a category, using "CC" instead of ":Category:", etc.), which is bound to confuse other users. Looking at the whole year, I'm not sure that comments in the code are going to achieve your desired result: "that anyone be able to understand the code and take over if need be" (a worthy goal). Things change a great deal from year to year. I will take this up again (in ChoralWiki_talk:Seasonal_music#Automation_redux) when we have 2022 fixed. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
And what's with exactly the same seasonal code for weeks 14 and 22? I don't understand "it doesn't look like the switch gets restarted at Lent" – what are you asking for? — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I have taken care of most of the technical details – there are still too many blank lines at end of each week's display, but I think they will disappear when I remove the last few lines of code. I did have to remove the break in Switch before week 25, so that there is no extra blank line. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The "little details which turn out to have big consequences" seems to me quite a vulnerability, but thanks for all the tweeking and I think that between the two of us ChoralWiki:Seasonal music/Test is largely correct! Next year the big change is to start the Easter Cycle after Ash Wednesday 22 Feb., so 2022's week 8 gets dropped and week 9/Lent I gets renumbered to take its place, and OT 11/Pentecost V fills the 18 June 2023 gap. Richard Mix (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Darkness at Christmas Dawn

The category "Christmas Dawn" as configured prevents items (principally 9 settings of "Lux fulgebit") from being listed in the general Christmas category listing. I would think it more important that such pieces are listed, for browsing purposes, in the more general categoryCjshawcj (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a general problem with subcategories: Category:ATB.SSATB has at present exactly one composition, which is not relisted in the parent Category:8-part choral music, and I agree it can be a pain to keep clicking on subcategories, even as I doubt I'll ever be brave enough to browse Category:Christmas.
I forget where the discussion happened but Category:2-part choral music was rejiggered to show all duets in both category and sub-categories. Another cludge would be to add 2 categories, both Xmas and Xmas dawn; this is why cat|motets (a friend's favorite search term) is added to so many pieces that have a narrower sub-genre as well. Richard Mix (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Category:Mass Ordinaries?

Hi Richard, Please see recent history of Agnus Dei (Oliver). This category (and subgenre) seems logical to me, but you probably know better. What do you think? — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I see NG uses "mass movement", sidestepping any inference that non-cyclical elements are survivors of some lost whole. I'm not sure this nuance merits a split from Category:Mass fragments though: if one is looking to assemble a program or service the origins of the ingredients are secondary. Richard Mix (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! — Barry Johnston (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Double numbering in Cancionero de Upsala

I would prefer not to change the double-numbered items in the original index. Any way you do it is bound to imply that the double-numbered items are together, and besides the "6b" etc. were designed by our honored forebears. I would rather suggest an explanatory sentence be added above. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing: relabeling the non-sequential No. column Page, or would you agree with eliminating double numbers altogether for the pieces that share a page? I started with the 5 & 4vv pieces, which now have both a page number and a no=n sequence. I don't take the "6b" very seriously; have you looked at Mitjana yet to see how he handles it? Richard Mix (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the help! Richard Mix (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Links to festal categories in Responsoriorum numero octoginta de tempore (Balthasar Resinarius)

Hi, Richard! I have gone through and linked the given occasions for each motet in Resinarius' responsorium (an early Lutheran source) to their appropriate seasonal categories, but I wondered if, as a person more expert than I in such matters, you could have a look over them to make sure I didn't make any errors. If you have time, of course. In particular I was wondering about the following matters:

1. Are De Annunciatione Domenica and Annunciationis Mariae the same day (ie. the Annunciation)?
2. I linked both Domenica prima post Trinitatis and Domenica post Corporis Christi to Ordinary Time 8. Is this correct?
3. In the second book, I linked to non-existent categories for several of the saints that didn't seem to have them yet, but should I have linked the Invention of the Holy Cross to Holy Cross?
4. I linked to a Common of Popes, but has that ever been a thing?
5. I couldn't figure out what day to link De Ecclesia to. I wasn't sure that it was the same as Dedication of a Church.

Thanks in advance! – GeoffG (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

It's quite interesting, thanks for drawing my attention. 1) I can't find Gaudia qui vitae cupitis anywhere else; maybe the Resinarius literature would have clues. 2) I think so; it seems an odd distinction to make, though! 3) Yes, maybe Holy Cross should have been split in the first place, but Invention is still sparsely populated. 4) Common of Pontifs, maybe: I'm rather vague myself. 5) a headscratcher: Surge aquilo seems associated with Assumption. Richard Mix (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Gyffard Partbooks—Mundy "Kyrie"

Hi, Richard!

Thanks for the message from earlier. I have the 2007 EECM edition of the Gyffard partbooks next to me—David Mateer also connects Mundy's Kyrie to "Cunctipotens genitor."

Did I do something wrong with the Gyffard contents listing? I didn't mean to if I did—I'm still learning the back-of-house editing tools. I totally agree it should be "Cunctipotens" and not "Orbis factor."



I figured this was inadvertent, and the updating looks great; thanks! (signing with ~~~~) Richard Mix (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

recommend error be corrected in two postings'Messiah')_(George_Frideric_Handel)

Keyboard Version (Posted 2009-09-26) CPDL #20042: (Finale 2000) Editor: Frans Meeusen (submitted 2009-08-24). Score information: A4, 13 pages, 165 kB Copyright: CPDL Edition notes:

Soprano line, measure #3, C should be A, D should be B, and second C should be A.

Same mistake is in:

KeyBoard Version (Posted 1999-10-29) CPDL #00457: (Finale 1998) Editor: Vladimir Ursic (submitted 1999-10-29). Score information: Letter, 13 pages, 336 kB Copyright: Personal Edition notes:

Can send someone a corrected file but it would be in finale-2014 format. Can also send corrected pdf files.

SillyOldMan (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! You can see what I already did with Template:ScoreError at Hallelujah (from 'Messiah') (George Frideric Handel), but now I examine the score it looks more like you must be referring to the 2nd, 3rd & 4th notes of Measure 5. Richard Mix (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
See Talk:Hallelujah (from 'Messiah') (George Frideric Handel) for more discussion of this topic. — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ave Maria to Bogoroditse Devo (Sergei Rachmaninoff)

Hi Richard, I recommended this page, part of a discussion thread in AddScore. My reasons:

  1. This is in a different language and also in a different religious tradition.
  2. This is not a translation of the original words, and differs in several ways from the original.
  3. This is a new arrangement (of the music, not words).
  4. The editor offered another edition in English.

Barry Johnston (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barry,
I'll hunt for that AddScore thread, but
  1. the main page Bogoroditse Devo (Sergei Rachmaninoff) has English as well as Slavonic
  2. English versions indulge in paraphrase too
  3. Is it? I went half way through pretty carefully
  4. Yes, but I don't think I'm following you…
Richard Mix (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
p.s. you don't seem to mean Talk:Add work or Talk:Add score activities, which are the pages that turn up in search.
Hi Richard,
All the words on Bogoroditse Devo (Sergei Rachmaninoff) (except CPDL 72901) are from the Russian Orthodox version of the original Greek of Luke 1:28, with several typical Slavonic additions (Богородице, Спаса родила, etc.). Ave Maria as used in this page, on the other hand, also was derived from Luke 1:28, but the Latin church took it in a different direction entirely. So neither "Богородице Дево радуйся" nor "Ave Maria, gratia plena" are Biblical nor are they translations of anything. Is "Ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc et in hora mortis nostrae" acceptable in Russian Orthodox theology? I don't know, but it doesn't seem likely. By keeping the Latin words separate from the Slavonic (and their translations or paraphrases), I has hoped to keep the can of worms closed.
You can go either way with this, it doesn't matter much, I guess. (The conversation was a thread on email called "Different words to Bogorodyitse" using the address – but maybe you don't see those?) — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
No; where exactly would one see those?
There have been discussions on contrafacta before and different ad hoc solutions seemed appropriate to Ave Maria, Op. 52, No. 6 (Franz Schubert), Coppini's versions, where both texts are sometimes underlayed, and O Tannenbaum (Traditional)/O Tannenbaum (secular) (Traditional) where there is not (yet?) a double edition and both pages are clearly linked. But it's a subject that deserves consideration. Richard Mix (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

"One page for all" vs. "Separate pages for separate languages or significant arrangements"

Hi Richard, I would very much appreciate if you could look at my posting at Talk:Lasst uns erfreuen (Ralph Vaughan Williams). Please comment if you wish. Thanks, Barry. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Seasonal music has clobbered the 2nd column of the Main Page

Hi Richard, Not sure what the error is, but your update to Choralwiki:Seasonal music has messed up the Main Page. -- Charlestalk Giffen 23:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that; please feel free to revert in the future! The code has become rather complicated to the point of unintelligibility, but maybe I can talk Barry into setting up a sandbox for trial and error editing. Richard Mix (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)