Talk:Old Hall Manuscript

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Numbering, errors in the DIAMM Inventory

There are some notable errors in the inventory of this MS on DIAMM, from which the current table seems to have been produced. Two 'Agnus Dei' settings are actually fragments of Gloria settings (on folios 4 and 8 - I have since altered these titles on the CPDL index), and two fragments on folio 3 are listed as one piece nostram qui sedes/Et in terra, when they are clearly fragments of two separate pieces from which the neighbouring folios have since been lost (now separate on the CPDL table, as Gloria, Old Hall 4 (Anonymous) and Gloria, Old Hall 5 (Anonymous)). Strangely, this seems to be confirmed by the fact that 146 entries are listed on the DIAMM index (and hence here on CPDL), yet on the 'Description' page it states that the contents of the MS are "147 pieces from 27 composers".

However, updating the numbering would involve shifting the remaining titles up one number, including some works pages that already exist. It would be quite an undertaking to delete the current pages for those works and reupload all the relevant files, as well as losing the edit history of such pages. Any recommendations? Is there an easy way to change the title of a works page?

Droopop (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Postscript - sticking plaster solution
I should also add - I have left the anonymous Gloria setting fragments on folios 3v and 4 listed as Gloria, Old Hall 6 and Gloria, Old Hall 6.5 as a temporary solution. Droopop (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, there is a way to change the title of a work page. I will do it later today, appropriate since I was the one who copied the DIAMM inventory here. So, as I understand it, 6.5 needs to be changed to 7, and for all following works 1 needs to be added to the page titles. Is that correct? Thanks much for sorting this out! — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe so. Ideally I would like to find an index elsewhere to corroborate all this but I think DIAMM contains the only one in the public domain... Droopop (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Alternatively (and let me know your thoughts), retain the original numbering and put the nostram. qui sedes fragment and the following fragment (both on folio 3) on the same works page. Not ideal but would save a ton of work and also mirror the information in the public domain (and Margaret Bent's numbering on various Oxford Music Online articles - see 'Pycard') Droopop (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I finished renaming and reformatting all. It's better to get it as correct as we can now, otherwise we surely will have to come back. It also gave an opportunity to standardize work titles. Sorry, I haven't been able to subscribe to Oxford Music. If further things need to be done, please let me know. — Barry Johnston (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think following either NG/Oxol or better the Corpus mensurabilis musicae 46 edition is a good idea, and although I haven't looked very far into things, does inscribing "Et in terra" identify the start of a new incomplete composition or indicate that a contra tenor belongs to a "gloria"? One thing that stands out in the page naming is that unlike the anonymous compositions, pages like Beata progenies, Old Hall 50 (Leonel Power) were not in need of disambiguation (I notice that the deleted Beata progenies (Leonel Power) has incoming red links). One could say that the added information is a harmless bonus, but it might be confusing for a hypothetical case of a work with a concordant source. Richard Mix (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I would defer to the editor in this case. Besides, neither of the two cited references is available to me. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Don't forget you have friends with library cards ;-) Cmm 46 seems to follow DIAMM (or vice versa); index here. Richard Mix (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I just discovered another index of this manuscript: Curtis and Wathey 1994 (cited with link on the publication page) – they have two works on fol. 3, total of 147. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
So Corpus Mensurabilis Musicae 1969 aligns with the list on DIAMM's Old Hall page; they both seem to be older. The newer list by Curtis and Wathey (1994; revised 2017) appears in a different section of DIAMM, was commissioned by the Early English Church Music Committee of the British Academy and "draws on the work of a considerable number of scholars", including the work of Margaret Bent and others on the Old Hall Manuscript. I am inclined to follow this newer list. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Lambe?

The composer of no. 98 here is probably not Walter Lambe of the CPDL page or the Wikipedia page, since he was born 1450-1451. The composer here may be an earlier Lambe. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That was my bad - have since created a new composer page for Lambe. Droopop (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

2017 DIAMM Inventory

As some of you know, I recently discovered a newer DIAMM inventory. The List of works on the page has now been converted to the data in Curtis and Wathey 1994, rev. Cook and Wright 1997 (at DIAMM), and all the linked page titles and Pub templates changed to their numbering system. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)