User talk:Campelli

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Le lagrime di San Pietro links


Hi Campelli. Welcome to CPDL and thanks for all the work you are doing on texts/translations. I see that you have replaced the texts in the individual madrigals in the Lasso Le lagrime di San Pietro by links to the common text page. Unfortunately, the way the text page is laid out makes a user interested in a particular madrigal (eg. E vago d'incontrar (Orlando di Lasso), 14 is not equal to 67) to find the actual text and translations, simply because the numbering of the madrigals is not reflected by corresponding numbering (and sectioning) on the text page. I think it would be much better if you break the text/translations section on the text page into 21 subsections with numbering (and subsection titles) corresponding to the Lasso madrigals. The goal of a text page at CPDL is to serve the music (and the musician). At any rate, thank you for your considerable work in supplying the translations! - Chuck Giffen

Added later: I took the liberty of reformatting the page along the lines of my suggestion, thus saving you the work. ‐ Chucktalk Giffen 02:49, 31 May 2011 (CDT)

Will do! Campelli 13:06, 31 May 2011 (CDT)

Hi again. I see you "corrected" the spellings of the titles of some of the madrigals on the text page. However, by doing so, they no longer correspond to the spellings used by Lasso. It seems to me that it would be better to retain the Lasso spellings (from an earlier time) in the titles but and indicate spelling variances in the text with bracketed letters in the Italian text, eg. "[53] Tre volte [h]aveva...". By analogy, we retain the older English spellings in the Tallis "Praise the Lord O ye Gentils all (A Psalme before Morning Prayer)" (instead of the modern "Gentiles" and "Psalm"), because that's the way Tallis and people of his era spelled things. Another reason for retaining the spellings is so that it will be easier to replace them with links to the Lasso madrigals in the subsection headings (I didn't have time to get to this). Let me know what you think. – Chucktalk Giffen 00:42, 1 June 2011 (CDT)
Chuck, I agree. Nonetheless, because I reproduced the text from the edition likely used by Lasso for his texts, a case could be made for the correction to the scores, rather than the reproduced text ;-). I'll return the titles to the equivalents of the published scores, and put the links to individual sections myself – you needn't worry about that too. Thanks for the f/up! Campelli 09:06, 1 June 2011 (CDT)
Many thanks! I'm wondering whether, even though we seem to know what edition Lasso was working from, Lasso used spelling that he was familiar with? At any rate, thanks for all your hard work. – Chucktalk Giffen 21:52, 1 June 2011 (CDT)

Psalm paraphrases

Hello, I see you have labeled several paraphrases of Psalms as translations. Isaac Watts, Tate and Brady, authors of the Old Version, and others: I don't believe any of them intended their works as translations. Many of them deviate widely from the Biblical text. They are properly termed metrical paraphrases. This is clear from the introductions to their works, for example Watts (1719) says, "It is necessary therefore that I should here inform my readers ... that they are not to expect a literal translation of the Psalms..." I ask that label these paraphrases correctly. Thank you. – Barry Johnston (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Barry, thanks for the feedback. I think your comment leads back to a conundrum within "text" pages. The templates we currently have on CPDL do not include one for paraphrases (same could be said for "poetic renditions" or "metric translations"), so one must choose between "Text" and "Translation" templates. Since the goal of the text pages is to avoid the repetitions that we have on many individual score pages -- by providing a single reference point where score pages can point to -- the templates are inadequate. Paraphrases are not the "texts" to which the page title refers; so they were incorrectly labelled under the Psalm heading because they often depart too much from the "original" text (regardless of whether Aramaic, reconstructed Hebrew, or Vulgate Latin) to be considered "text", so they probably should not be included in the Psalm page at all. Let me dig around to see if I can find a better template or create one. Otherwise, I'll revert them to "Text", albeit reluctantly. Francesco Campelli (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Francesco, thank you for your response. I guess I see it a little differently. To me, the {{Text}} template is generic, being applied to all sorts of sources, published and non-published; {{Translation}} is a special kind of text. {{Text}} is used on many pages. Use of the {{Text}} template on a Psalm page does not imply that it is the original text, and I don't see any problem with including paraphrases in a Psalm page (especially since historically they have been called Psalms in various psalters). Some time ago, I created a Template.Paraphrase (see this forum topic), but after realizing that in many cases it is difficult to separate them, I abandoned the idea - that discussion was centered around a non-Biblical source.
I think the metrical Psalms of the Old Version, New Version (Tate and Brady), Isaac Watts, and others are an exception. They are clearly paraphrases and were intended as such. For one thing, they arose during a time when it was illegal to translate any part of the Bible; then, calling them translations might be punishable by torture or worse. And nowadays, there are both translations and paraphrases of the Bible available; it is important to distinguish between them, though both are useful.
Yet separation of paraphrases from translations across all of CPDL is a very daunting task, and I think probably counter-productive. I have done a few translations, so I know how fuzzy the distinction is. So I feel the best way to treat these is to include them on Psalm pages, but label them as "metrical versions" or "metrical paraphrases". Of course, we would use the generic {{Text}} template, as we do with any text. Then, I feel, text that the author clearly intended as translations should be labeled as such. – Barry Johnston (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Gotcha. Give me a couple of days to revert Translations to Text because I also did quite a bit of "cleaning up" of the format, and I don't want to lose that. Thanks again for your frank feedback, a rare and underappreciated gift in the world of the wikis. Francesco Campelli (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Il pastor fido

Hi Campelli,

It was a good idea of yours to gather the texts at Ecco Silvio! I have qualms though about deleting them from the work pages, since it's not readily apparent that the italicized Tutto quel che ’n me vedi belongs to d'India's Dorinda but not Monteverdi's. I think it would be good to add line numbers too: if Ferir quel petto, Silvio? (149-180) and Dorinda ah dirò mia (1251-1278) are correct, the excerpts are not strictly consecutive, and it might shed light on where Se tu, dolce mio ben (Luca Marenzio) fits the sequence. All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)