User talk:Andris Solims

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Requested page "Requests:" explanation

Hi, this is a copy of my reply to your message on Category talk:Requested:

Unfortunately the word "Requests:" appears as part of the mechanism through which the works get listed on the Requested page and the naming convention for pages which represent a requested work. For example, the page requesting the work "Blessed are the pure in heart" by Walford Davies is titled Requests:Blessed are the pure in heart (Walford Davies). The Template:Request automatically attaches the categories Category:Requests, Category:Requests_by_composer, and Category:Requested to such a page (and the reference is by the title of the page (including the undesirable "Requests:" part of the title).
ChuckGiffen 08:11, 1 December 2006 (PST)

O salutaris hostia

I'm not agree to merge this page of "O salutaris hostia (Anonymous)" into "Gaude Mater Polonia"... It is a question - which melody was a primary: or Polish Hymn of 13th century or Hymn, used during the exposition of Most Blessed Sacrament just from Early Medieval time, on which melody Polish Hymn was based?? The gregorian melody of exposition's Hymn "O salutaris hostia" of course was the original melody and is still used in many Churches. You can find this inscription on Wikipedia, too (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaude_Mater_Polonia). Because of that the composer of Latin exposition's Hymn "O salutaris hostia" is unknown or anonymous and rests so as the composer of this melody. But the arranger of the 1st strophe of Polish 4-voice Hymn is Teofil Klonowski (1805-1876) from 19th century. It could be added to the composer's dates.

For long time I had intention to arrange for choir this gregorian Hymn of exposition, what is used in all Latvian Churches in the Liturgy, and at the end I have decided to perform the existens arrangement of Polish Hymn with Latin text. If these both Hymns could be able used parallely during all these centuries and never were mixed up, how You can to do this mixture, if they have a different application in the Liturgy??? For example the song "O sanctissima" has also other "sister-song" "Ak tu prieciga" with the same arrangement but with different name and using as the Christmas song in Latvian Church. And how it's possible to mix up two different scores with different names and applications? Please, stop this movement to merge this and other similar works together!!! Or the opinions of editors and contributors of this site are completely ignored???

Happy New Year to all and good success in Your work! Father Andris Solims Andris Solims 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Composer page

Dear Andris, thank you, wish you a belated Happy New Year too! I'd like to inform you that your Composer page wasn't properly formatted, so it was edited and split in two pages: one for the Composer's info and one for the Editor's info. Please try as much as possible to keep the Composer page in its current layout; the Editor page may be more freely changed at will. Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup notices

Hi Andris. I noticed that in a recent edit to Rorate coeli (Advent prose) (Gregorian chant), you removed a cleanup notice that I placed there. Please do not remove cleanup notices unless you have corrected the problem yourself. I have restored the notice. Many thanks --Bobnotts talk 11:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rorate coeli

Salve, Robert! Sorry about disturbance, but I cann't understand where You see a problem with my edited Gregorian Antiphon "Rorate coeli", if it is You who changed the Composer from "Anonymous" to "Gregorian chant" on 11 Oct 2009? What is wrong with Composer page after this Your change?? Any other changed Gregorian chant, moved from Anonymous, hasn't Cleanup notice in the list of this Category. And the text of this Introit's Antiphon is Liturgical text from Roman Missal, where is only one couplet and not three as in the edition of Rev. Abel di Marco "Rorate caeli desuper", which page I (as many others) cann't see with Windows Vista. If also some section would be similar or equivalent, but the rest is different, it isn't possible to consider both scores as the same thing. Therefore it isn't allowed to merge them. Andris Solims 03:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Encore difficulties with Windows Vista

Important!
A big part of Encore files are written with Encore 4.5.5. for Windows XP (updating 4.5.3. version). But the newer files are written with Encore 4.5.5. for Windows Vista (oooohhhhh!), and there could be some problems with opening of these files because the wrong Printer Info bug in the Program, that does not allow to save the selected Margin Setting in the Page Setup. To open these files You have to convert them before with StripPrinterInfo Program: http://www.katolis.lv/majori/scores/StripPrinterInfo.zip , but before the conversion of file it must be tryed to be opened, and only when it failed You can convert it. When You will see the inscription "File Successfully Converted!", now You can open this file and change the Margin Setting in the Page Setup to 0.6 cm (or different). Then You can save the changes done on this file, but the Program can be failed many times during Your working process and You will need to repeat so many times the conversion procedure... (Rest in Peace!!!) Unfortunatly Encore 4.5.5. version does not allow to use the Latvian characters in the Font "Times New Roman" instead of precedent Font "Times New Roman Baltic", that You need to use the Fonts with extension "Baltic", e.g., Caxton Bk TL Baltic; CentSchbook TL Baltic; CenturyOldst TL Baltic ecc.
At the last editions there are two Encore files be able: Encore 4.5.5. written with Windows Vista (=Encore 4) and Encore 5.0.2. (=Encore 5). To open the file with new version 5.0.2. You must download the file and save it before the opening. If You use both versions, click with right mouse on the file and "Open With" relative version. But the new fifth version has a lot of bugs and problems to work correctly. There are problems with Language settings on the Regional Windows Settings for non-Unicode Programs, if Your Language is set other then English (United States), e.g., if Your Language is Latvian, Polish, Croatian ecc. You must open the "Control Panel", then "Clock, Language, and Region" and select "Regional and Language Options", where in the "Administrative" have to change the Latvian or other Language to English (United States) as the "Language for non-Unicode programs" on the "Change system locale". After these change and restarting of System the new version Encore 5.0.2. will work properly, but it can cause other problems with using of Latvian or Your local Language on Your Windows System, e.g., it can change the order of characters on Your Keyboard, if You use the product of "Tilde"... When open Encore 4 file with Encore 4.5.5. select the "Margin Setting" in the "Page Setup" to 0.6 cm and Save. For correct seeing of the Latvian text must be installed the Font "Caxton Bk LT Baltic" or other Fonts with extension "Baltic". Andris Solims 00:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your email

Dear Mr. Solims, thanks for contacting me but I'm afraid I can't decide this alone, so I've requested help from the other fellow admins and editors in my talk page. You are invited to follow the discussion there. Thank you. —Carlos Email.gif 16:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On Jordan's Bank

 Help 

Hi Andris. Thanks for your two editions of "On Jordan's bank the Baptist's cry." I took the liberty of moving the "voice" (melody) edition to the main On Jordan's bank the Baptist's cry (William Henry Monk) page, since that is how we normally treat such extracts from the full score. Many thanks for all the fine editions you have contributed to CPDL – they are much appreciated. Best wishes, and Merry Christmas to you.

Hi Charles! Thanks for Your wishes and corrections! I wish also to You and for all moderators and contributors very Happy and joyful Christmas and Blessed from Newborn King the New Year 2013!!! Andris Solims

Salvation of national language score titles

Hi Carlos and all other moderators! The best greetings in New Year 2013! I would like to express some opinion about renewed movement of a merging of the works and changing of titles from translated scores to original title. It creates a confusion, when some person would like to find some work with exactle title known to him in Latvian, Polish ecc., but don't known in the original language. For example, if I need to find on CPDL a score in Latvian with title "Prieks pasaulei", I'll not be able to find it, because there isn't more work with this title. And it can't be found on the User's page more!!! I propose to keep the national language title as it was edited by Contributor and put parallelly in the original language score folder the reference of translated score title. In this occasion it would be visible to all who would be interested to compare different editions. And that person who would search only national language score will be able to find it without difficulties on CPDL, as well on Google ecc. Please reflect this proposition, otherwise it looks like "elimination" of other national language scores with intention to keep only original titles. Sorry, it isn't so democratically! :)) Andris Solims

Hello Mr. Andris, thank you for the good wishes! Regarding the work Prieks pasaulei, Richard Mix had suggested already in 17 December 2010‎ its merger with Joy to the world (the title by which it is better known), and after listening to the arrangement I agreed with him that it could be done. But from the point of view of someone searching for this work, it doesn't change anything: if you type the Latvian title in the search box, it still appears, because a redirect was left behind with that title. Similarly it should still appear in Google searches. It is now being linked from the proper composer page (Lowell Mason), and I've just included a link also on the arranger's page (Mamerts Celminskis). I hope you are satisfied with my explanation, but if you'd like to discuss it more thoroughly please feel free to create a topic in the forums. All the best, —Carlos (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

O sacred head (Hans Leo Hassler)

Hi Andris, yes, Hassler is the composer of the melody but 3/4 (the other parts) are by Bach. When you look at the JS. Bach page there are a lot of Chorale Harmonizations but none of them has a melody composed by Bach. Both of the harmonizations in your pdf are by Bach. The melody is not the original but has been altered by Bach. The original Hassler can be seen at Mein G'müth ist mir verwirret. I'm sorry if I caused you discomfort with my actions. My recommendation is to only place one composition/harmonization in an edtion (devide it into 2 ore more PDFs and publish them separately in the cpdl. This way it is more clear for other users when they search a piece of music. In my opinion it still should not be listed among Hassler's compositions. Geichler 08:32, 13 March 2013‎

Mr. Andris, I think that Geichler has a valid point here. Bach's so called "harmonizations" are universally considered as compositions by their own merit, no matter who composed the underlying tune. As a compromise solution, I'll add links to your edition from both composers' pages. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 15:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

SortWorks

Andris, as someone who has contributed a lot to the site over the years, you may have noticed that we've recently been making significant changes to the composer pages. The principal aim of this is to automate, as far as possible, the process of adding new works to those pages. Another change is that we are removing the file links from the composer pages. The reason for this is simple; we have found by experience that, if people upload new version of files, while they are automatically added to the works page, they need to be manually altered on the composer page. Most people forget to do this, so we end up with mismatched files.

One side benefit is that, in the past, people sometimes forgot to add their editions to the composer page and the new template picks up all those missing editions, as well as works where the composer is indicated solely as arranger. (My record so far for any composer is 21 missing works, including, shamefully, one of my own editions!) All this is still very much work in progress, particularly for the more complex composer pages, but I would be interested for any feedback you may have, whether positive or negative.Jamesgibb (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)