User talk:Jason Smart

Hi Jason, a belated welcome to CPDL! :) Thanks for all these new editions.

I replied to your question on my own talk page, please check there, ok? —Carlos  01:26, 11 September 2012 (CDT)

Asperges me (Anonymous) disambiguation

Hi Jason,

Always a pleasure to spot another of your new editions! Asperges me (Anonymous) (not to be confused with Asperges me Domine (Anonymous)) is apparently the 2nd setting in Gyffard. I'd be very interested to know what you think of titling anonymous pieces; the Anon. composer page is really getting out of control. One solution I've seen is O salutaris Hostia (Gyffard) (Anonymous) though [[Title (Anonymous, source)]] avoids double parentheses. All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Richard,

I really haven't got the hang of how this ChoralWiki works, so I hope you see this. I screwed up the upload of "Asperges me" and I messaged Carlos to ask him to alter the title to "Asperges me (Gyffard Partbooks, 2nd setting)", but I can't relocate my message. Yes, the Anonymous section is getting very unwieldy. I am not really qualified to comment, but it occurs to me that people querying the anonymous section will likely have specific parameters in mind. I haven't really thought about it before, but offhand it seems to me that what is required is for the "Anonymous" composer link to lead to a hierarchy of sub-pages where one can "drill down" further via (1) sacred/secular, (2) period and (3) nationality. But ideally one would want to query any of these three in any order of priority, e.g. I might be looking for anonymous, secular French music from the Baroque era, or, alternatively, anonymous French music from the Renaissance that's sacred. Rather you than me!

Jason

Sheppard page

Hi,

I noticed your suggestion on Carlo's page and experimented with a couple of small tweaks to the sortworks function at John_Sheppard#Latin_works. A possibly easier & tidier way might be the sortable table, as used at Johannes Ockeghem. Best of luck, from Tom Sawyer Richard Mix (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Richard,

Thanks for picking up the gauntlet! An Ockeghem-type table would certainly work, but my own preference would be to group the pieces under sub-headings, much as they are now. I'd do the job myself except that I know there are various cross-references for many of the editions (to things like scoring and genre) and I'd be sure to mess things up if I tried meddling.

Best wishes,

Jason

Gloria Patri (Tallis)

Thanks for adding the information. It was obviously an extract from somewhere, but I had no idea where! I've edited your comment so that it leads directly to the relevant page.
Jamesgibb (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Fawkyner

Hi Jason. Sorry to take so long to reply (both family/medical issues and general extreme busy-ness these days, plus some searching about on John & Richard Fawkyner). I've moved the composer page to Fawkyner and added information that I've gleaned on the two possible suspects. I'm pretty sure Tim Symons was aware of the John background, since he is quite a scholar, and only subsequently may have entertained the possibility that there was a Cambridge Richard as an alternate choice. Anyway, many many many thanks for the "Gaude rosa" score! It's something I've wanted to see for a long, long time. Do you plan to engrave the other Fawkyner work? (I hope so!). Best wishes -- Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 18:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

O columba sapientiae

Thanks for fixing the typo!

Everton

Hi Jason. The problem is that the file with the pdf extension is actually a mid (midi) file - even the upload note says it's a midi file (and the file size is 4Kb not 40Kb). Just delete the current wrongly labeled file and either upload a new pdf(!) file or stay with the old pdf file. That should work. Best wishes. -- Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 14:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. Many thanks for your help. I think I've sorted it.

Jason Smart (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Barber (I)

Hi Jason, I see you reverted my edits, where I estimated birth and death dates. You are correct, there is "no evidence of birth c. 1500 or death c. 1560." You obviously know a great deal more about this composer than I do, yet the categories "<Date> births" and <Date> deaths" represent the best way we have to assign a composer as to range of years, for history purposes. Otherwise this composer would not appear on English composers, listed by birth year and other lists. However, I notice you didn't change the birth and death categories on this page. Would you mind if we keep the page as it is now? — Barry Johnston (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barry,

Thanks for explaining. The trouble with guessing dates is that there's always a danger of purveying false impressions. However, I understand your rationale for wanting a range of dates. For what it's worth, my gut feeling is that Barber is probably roughly contemporary with Taverner (there's a brief allusion to Taverner's four-part 'Dum transisset' in Barber's own setting), so if it's possible to push your suggested range back 10 years to c.1490–c.1550, I think that might be better. Best wishes Jason Smart (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jason, thanks for the suggestion! I will do that. — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Magnificat (William Mundy)

Hello Jason,

You recently removed the line "{{Pub|0|1572|in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]''|ms=ms|no=76}}" from this page, saying "Removing incorrect '1572' link to Gyffard Partbooks". I'm not sure what you're getting at. Does this work not appear in the Gyffard Partbooks? Or is "1572" the incorrect year? In order to make lists work, e.g., "Works at CPDL", and in order for the work to be linked to the correct publication, there needs to be only one integer year in the second parameter of the Pub template, and that number needs to be the same for all works in that publication (manuscript in this case). However you can adjust this to better represent available knowledge, such as "{{Pub|0|c. 1572|in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]'' … }}" or "{{Pub|0|1572|– 1590 in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]'' … }}" or {{Pub|0|c. 1572| (copied c. 1580) in ''[[Gyffard Partbooks]]'' … }}", so long as the number in the second parameter is the same for all works in the publication. Maybe you can think of other options. Perhaps we need different dates for the whole manuscript? What do you think?

I fully understand the issues with manuscripts. I am currently dealing with a set of early American manuscripts that seem to defy dating. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)