Template talk:MassText

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Possible refinements


Of the various text templates, only this template uses "Please refer to.." construct, while the others use "Original text and translations...". Also, instead of ", or" it would be better English language style to make the two clauses separate sentences. I would suggest something along the lines of:

For information, refer to the Mass page. For texts and translations, see the individual pages:

KyrieGloriaCredoSanctus & BenedictusAgnus Dei


For information, refer to the Requiem page. For texts and translations, see the individual pages:

IntroitusKyrieTractusSequentiaOffertoriumSanctus & BenedictusAgnus DeiCommunio

I do like the bulletted separations and the two line format. I've indented the individual page listings for comparison, although another possibility might be to center the second line in each case (I think indenting looks better). Putting "For information" and "For texts and translations" first in each sentence is better, both stylistically (parallel construction) and for announcing from the outset the purpose of each sentence.

Many thanks to Carlos for updating this template.

On a different note, I think that the Sanctus & Benedictus pages should be combined, given the rarity of separate (stand alone) compositions of either (or both) movements. What do others think?

Hi Chuck, I liked your suggestion, in fact the phrase was becoming too long with all those links, especially after I added the "for information" part. The indentation is also fine (that final dot was left over by mistake). I hope you will be able to help with the links to the text pages: do they look better all in Latin or should the ones that have an English translation use it (Tract, Introt, Communion etc.)? Another thing that confused me was that on wikipedia the text for the Tractus is said to be Absolve, Domine instead of Sicut cervus, is it correct? And what about also adding a Gradual after the Kyrie (not sure if there are any settings of Gradual on CPDL). Thanks —Carlos Email.gif 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


I like using the Latin forms instead of the English forms. I think the text of the Tractus (Tract) was changed at some point, so that one has either the original Sicut cervus or the modern Absolve appearing, depending upon the time period.

Actually, Absolve goes back to the 11th century (hence the rather gloomy text), whereas the more hopeful Sicut cervus is more recent. joachim 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, then in the case of CPDL the old Tractus is the one that probably appears on the masses. Chuck, you know this subject much better than I, please go ahead and implement the suggested changes! —Carlos Email.gif 17:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Philip LeggeΦ talk 12:41, 9 May 2009 (AEST)


The standardisation of texts for the Propers of the Requiem mass was an outcome of the Tridentine Council; so roughly after the late 1550s, you no longer see variant texts in polyphonic Requiem masses. There's an early Lassus requiem which is probably one of the last to be written with a variant Tractus. I can see why the Graduale has been left off the template, since it's a redundant link to the same page as the Introitus, but shouldn't it be there for the sake of completeness?

One might argue for the inclusion of Ite, missa est in the ordinary form of {{MassText}} – probably in small text – since there are mass settings including this part of the Ordinary. I've in fact just composed such a movement to cap off someone else's mass setting! :)

I think it would be less confusing to list the Requiem propers by their textpage names. This would also allow for variants, since this is a one-size-fits-all template. At present, if I click on Tractus, I get a redirect to Sicut cervus with no explanation, and bypass Absolve, Domine, which is less than fair to the newbies :-D The gradual Requiem has the same antiphon text as the introit, but of course the verse is different and might as well be spelt out on the Requiem aeternam text page. Btw, the Gregorian chant page is currently in flux. Richard Mix 23:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Elevation motets & other frills

There are a number of mostly French masses that include additional motets. I just looked at Messe a 8 vois et 8 violons et flutes (H.3) (Marc-Antoine Charpentier) and added it to the text page Domine salvum fac which must, like O salutaris hostia, be missing more entries. Is there a way to add these without a separate LinkText template, but that would include them in the TextAutoList line? This might also solve the Requiem problem discussed above. Richard Mix (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard, the template was changed as you suggested. Now it accepts up to three extra parameters, and lists the work in the appropriate text pages. —Carlos (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Belated thanks! Can there also be a way to subtract movements from Kyrie-less Sarum masses like Missa Lapidaverunt Stephanum (Nicholas Ludford) or Gloria-less ferial masses like Messe basse (Gabriel Fauré)? (I'm starting to realize this last work has a lot to do with Messe des pêcheurs de Villerville (André Messager and Gabriel Fauré)!) Richard Mix (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Richard, this is certainly possible! I just need to know which movements can be hidden and which ones are mandatory. You cited Kyrie and Gloria. Any other hideable movement that comes to your mind? —Carlos (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
This feature is now implemented, please check the template documentation. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! I can think offhand of Isaac's Credo-less masses, the replacement of Benedictus by Elevations (routine in France), and of course fragmentarily preserved works that lost their closing pages; maybe Sanctus is mandatory though ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I just had the thought that "•" belongs to the beginning of the following item: Missa Brevis (Dietrich Buxtehude) has a hanging dot. Richard Mix (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I knew that the bullets would present us some extra work, depending on the combination of movements chosen. Will see what I can do about it. —Carlos (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)