Talk:Adeste fideles (Traditional)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Split discussion

Because of the ever-increasing number of arrangements and adaptations of the original tune, I'm of the opinion that the texts and translations should not be a part of this page. Instead, they should be on a separate page (as with other Text-translations pages) or moved to the Adeste fideles tune page (I somewhat prefer the latter). On a separate (or tune) page, one would find it easier to link various harmonizations and settings of the tune and text (following the method used for citing settings on Text-translations pages). I have in the meantime linked the Fabrizio Perone setting to this page, which is a somewhat distinct harmonization and probably should not be a part of this page. -- Chucktalk Giffen 05:17, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

Against a split (though open to other arguments and suggestions) As you know I'm a bit of a "mergist" (is that a new word? go me) when it comes to this situation but I hope to explain my rationale - in my mind, it's all about convenience for the user.
On several other carol and hymn pages, I have separated "harmonizations" (tune & harmony - strophic) from "arrangements" (often more variation of harmony over different verses - through-composed). I reckon that if we're dealing with a tune which is usually (as in this case) set to a specific set of words or a translation of those words then they should be contained within a single page so that it's easy for users to choose alternative harmonisations/arrangements. If there is a popular pd arrangement which has been contributed in many different editions then in that situation, it may be best to move it to another page. On the other hand, for tunes such as Greensleeves, which have quite a few different texts associated with them, I think it's best for editions of each separate text to be on separate score pages linked to from the tune page (as they are at the moment). For me, Fabrizio Perone's arrangement does not justify a separate score page as 1) it has the same text as all the harmonizations and arrangements on this page and 2) the arrangement isn't significantly different from the others that are on there. I can see where you're coming from, Chuck, Perone's arrangement has quite a different harmonization but I don't think that's enough to separate it from the rest of the settings on this page. As I mentioned above, I'm open to more discussion on this one - some examples may be useful. I guess we just need to find a balance. :-) --Bobnotts talk 07:46, 1 April 2008 (PDT)
In that case, why is Adeste fideles (Gregorian chant) not included. If the tune is by John Wade or John Reading, then the Gregorian chant version isn't really Gregorian chant (which originated much earlier), and I suspect the same is true of the possible authorship of Simao Portogallo - in other words, either the tune is much older than these composers, or the Greagorian chant is a contrafactum(?). At any rate, doesn't the Gregorian version then also belong here? Also, why is it that there are only 3 Latin stanzas here, yet there are at least 6 stanzas in translations? And, of course, there are still other texts (at least English and Latin) using the first verse (and sometimes some of the others) ... mostly from Catholic and other sects. The whole thing seems a mess to me. I agree that there are "traditional" versions (and texts), and then there are others (harmonizations, alterations of tune, texts). And at least one old hymnal (shape note) gives the tune as "Portugal" with a different composer. It has appeared in modern times that the composer was Wade, see Notes on the Carol Adeste Fideles. This source also has facsimiles of the "Jacobite" manuscript, dating from ca. 1735, which is of considerable historical interest. Anyway, it's a sticky matter, and I'm less inclined than you to merge, certainly not inclined to merge indiscriminately. -- Chucktalk Giffen 09:27, 1 April 2008 (PDT)

CPDL #01872

I have contacted Simone via the page on the website as I can't find this edition on the website. --Bobnotts talk 15:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


pdf file unreadable. Jamesgibb (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)