Talk:Orlando di Lasso

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


User:Barry Johnston has drawn my attention to an interesting proposal in the CPDL Operation and Implementation issues forum which I mean to study.

My very first impression is that it would be a pity to have to re-invent a labeling system for publications; it's confusing to read:

0380	1570	Viginti quinque sacræ cantiones, 5vv	Nur	Sac	Mot	5	Second enlarged edition of 1562a.

and find that 1562a

0120	1562	Sacrae cantiones quinque vocum	Nur	Sac	Mot	5	Enlarged 2nd edition issued in 1570

has a higher number than 1562b

0110	1562	Il terzo libro delle Muse a quattro voci	Rom	Sec	Mad	4	Publisher A. Barré.

let alone to deal with List of Orlando di Lasso publications. I have to admit though I haven't thought much about how NG chooses the letters in its YYYYl format. Richard Mix (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard! The issue between 1562a and 1562b has been fixed. I chose to use index numbers because I couldn't find one publication numbering system that indexed everything in the table at the bottom of this page. IMSLP appears to use two different systems, one with letter suffixes and another with numbers -- and some known publications aren't listed or given codes. In addition, some of Lasso's works appeared in publications of others. (Forgive my ignorance; what is NG?). If there is a numbering system in place that has everything, I would be happy to use it.
The index numbers I use could be in a separate table, if it is confusing to have them here; but it is necessary to have them somewhere, so that new publications can be inserted.
The numbers (1 - 92) on of Orlando di Lasso publications this page are optional, mostly I needed them to make sure I had the same number of publications on all three pages. These numbers will change as more publications are added, so perhaps they shouldn't appear. I have removed them.
Are there ways these pages could be improved? Thanks for your help. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, NG = New Grove or now the merged Oxford Music Online. I see there's already more than one system there too, distinguished by square and curved brackets:
[25] Sacrae cantiones, 5vv (Nuremberg, 1562, enlarged 2/1570) (RISM 1562a/1570b) [1562/1570h]
I confess I don't know my way around RISM or understand yet why if I search there for RISM 1587k I get A Graun ouverture! Richard Mix (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Another Possibility

As a possible alternative, I tried sorting by language and number of parts. What do you think of this? (This page uses dpl a lot, though). Thanks for your comments. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
This page is wonderful but, if it uses DPL a lot, why shouldn't you think to restore the front composer page automatic like 2,000 others (among 2,200): List of works={{#SortWorks:}} plus {{Whatlinkshere}} and putting that wonderful page just one click away from the top of the standard composer front page? I hate, each morning, having to check if someone has added a new work and has forgotten to add it to the composer manual-list of works. List of problematic pages is here. ;-) Claude (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, Claude! I will implement this later today. — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
The Orlando di Lasso page has been reorganized using SortWorks, linking to the pages described above and in the Forum topic. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


I'm pleased that CPDL now has the complete 4vv Magnificats by Lassus! I've made a sortable table at Magnificat (Orlando di Lasso) and would like to solicit input on disambiguating pagenames of the pattern "Magnificat nnnn toni" (the parodies of course disambiguate themselves). A clunky way might be to adapt existing naming conventions: "Mag. n. toni a vv (yyyy)". I'm leaning more to using the numbering of the 1619 publication Iubilus beatæ virginis hoc est centum Magnificat with Roman numerals to distinguish it from the other numberings: Magnificat primi toni II (Orlando di Lasso) would move to Magnificat I (Orlando di Lasso) or Magnificat I, primi toni (Orlando di Lasso); No's 67 and 102 in Erb's edition would be dealt with like Palestrina: Magnificat 67 (Mü 71) (Orlando di Lasso) and Magnificat 102 (Ms. La 341) (Orlando di Lasso). Including the mode in the page name might be useful for some users (picking a Mag. to match the antiphon is the first winnowing step for planning a liturgy), but perhaps the sortable page is all that is needed. Richard Mix (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I would also use the 1619 Magnificat collection to tell Magnificats apart. Of the naming schemes you proposed I would choose the Magnificat primi toni I version, since the tone for Magnificats is of primary importance. (No wonder they were printed in sets of 8, as the Magnificat had to accord with the antiphon regardint tone, and the tone of the antiphon was given.) But this naming scheme is insufficient. Because in this way there is no distinction between 4 voice and 5 voice and 6 voice Magnificats, there would be three Magnificat primi toni I. I would therefore propose the version Magnificat primi toni I (1), Magnificat secundi toni I (5) etc. The numbers in parentheses being the numbers in the 1619 collection.

Imruska (talk)

Maybe we need parentheses; this might show my plan better:



Richard Mix (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Having slept on it, I've thought this could be much simpler: adding a catalogue number to the 6 above would look like:

Does it seem like a good idea to add these to the parodies, not really in need of disambiguation? Richard Mix (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


I intensely dislike the current organisation of the page, because now it is much less intuitive and much more tedious to find a piece of which you only know the title. E.g. I have heard the chanson "Vignon, vignon, vignette". I checked if CPDL has it. Before the reorganisation I would have found it immediately in the Chanson category organised in alphabetical order. Now, since this is a very light piece, first I thought I'll check under the 4-voice chansons. No match. Then I checked the 5-voice chansons. No match. I finally found it amongst the 6-voice chanson. Thanks to the clever reorganisation now it took me 3 times more time to find it than before the reorganisation. Similarly, if you are looking for a piece (chanson, madrigal, motet, or even mass) which CPDL does not have, you have to check several lists to find out that CPDL does not have it, whereas before the clever reorganisation checking one alphabetically organised list was sufficient. Grouping the works into such small categories is what Multi-category search is for. If you are looking only for the 5 voice motets of Lassus, then you should use Multi-category search, all the more so, as then you have the chance to e.g. exclude the SATTB motets, and list only the SSATB and SAATB ones. So I am continuously annoyed when I'm trying to find something. If this was the motivation for the reorganisation, then it surely achieved its goal. However, if it was meant to facilitate to find what you are looking for, then it is a clear failure. Cannot we have the old page back? (No wonder, the Grove Dictionary of Music also uses broad categories and puts the works then in alphabetical order. It does not even differentiate between sacred or secular motets, since neither do Lassus's original publications.) Imruska (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I heartily endorse all Imruska's comments. it is ridiculous that one cannot browse or perform a semi-informed search without being pre-armed as to the nature of a work, its forces and when it was published. If everything is to be categorized in ever more unhelpful ways, why not file madrigals, for example, by alphabetical order (or perhaps date order might be more illuminating) of the mistresses for whom they were written?Cjshawcj (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It appears you want the page reorganised by broad categories. What would those be, specifically? I would be glad to do that, while using {{#SortWorks}}.
(By the way, I found "Vignon, vignon, vignette" with six keystrokes: CTRL-F, V, i g, n – is that possible on your computer? It is also available at Orlando di Lasso compositions, where one click on V showed the work in a list. Similar process to search for a work not on CPDL.) – Barry Johnston (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Any sudden changes are apt to be distressing for somebody, as for me today at Cipriano de Rore ;-) As Barry says, Category:Orlando di Lasso compositions already contains an alphabetized list; the trick is to look for the yellow band (which was missing from Rore, I think), a bit after the top of the page, which has in this case the following pointers:
  • For works at CPDL sorted alphabetically by title, see Orlando di Lasso compositions
  • For works at CPDL sorted chronologically by publication, see Works of Orlando di Lasso in chronological order
  • For works at CPDL sorted by Language, Genre and date, see Works of Orlando di Lasso sorted by language and genre
Similar disputes that arose at Brahms & Mendelssohn were resolved this way, with separate pages for Felix Mendelssohn#List of choral works (sacred vs. secular),Felix Mendelssohn - list of choral works (by opus no.) and Category:Felix Mendelssohn compositions (alphabetical). I've tried another (maintenance intensive) solution at Johannes Ockeghem, the sortable table on a single page: one still has to know to click on the top. Richard Mix (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Richard. (See changes in progress at Cipriano de Rore) Another related solution is at Carlo Gesualdo. These were designed in order to accommodate (as much as possible) users with different needs, whether they are looking for a specific title, a certain genre, number of voices, or works within a publication. – Barry Johnston (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2018 (UTC)