User talk:Johnhenryfowler/Archive 1

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Tallis' O Nata Lux

Many thanks for your edition of Tallis' little gem O Nata Lux which I hope to peruade my local choir-master to use (I belong to a chamber choir and a traditional satb church choir. I only hope that the tenors are up to being divided!). I remember this beautiful piece from my treble days many years ago. The version we used was distinctive for the wonderful dissonances in bar17 and in the penultimate bar. These add so much to the poignancy of the music which matches the text so well. Some editions have taken these out, which seems a great pity - I'm no musicologist, but I'm sure they should be there and I'm delighted that your edition retains them. However, we always used to repeat bars 14-23 (as in the OUP Greening edtion), second time P or PP with a fair-sized, well big! Rall at the end - cheesy and possibly anachronistic, but it worked very well. On another matter, I see your version of Let thy merciful ears you attribute to Weelkes. I believe that this attribution has been challenged for a long time - it was based on a false assumption by Fellowes - and that it is now thought to be by Thomas Mudd. I expect that you know this and maybe your Weelkes attribution is for copyright purposes. Anyway, thanks again for the Tallis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roger Parker (talkcontribs) on 12:46, 6 April 2006.

Weelkes' Mag and Nunc (6th service)

Hi John. Just a quick note to suggest that the additional CPDL #s for Weelkes' Mag and Nunc as seperate scores be removed. I think this should be done to avoid confusion (I originally thought that you had provided 3 PDFs: 1) Complete 2) Mag 3)Nunc). I just came across it whilst tidying the Weelkes page. Let me know what you think. Cheers, Rob Bobnotts 12:55, 21 September 2006 (PDT)

Correa

I'm looking at your score for Correa's O Vos Omnes. You show a one-sharp key signature. But the other edition I have, edited by Francis Jackson and supposedly based on a manuscript from Lisbon, has no key signature, so all the Fs are natural, giving it a more Phrygian feel. What's your source for the key signature? Choralnet 15:35, 29 January 2007 (PST)

Byrd Mass for Four Voices

Hi John. The link to your complete edition of the above points to your Benedictus of the setting rather than a full score. Dave had a look for the complete score on the server but to no avail. Just thought I'd let you know in case you didn't see the page. Bobnotts 08:12, 18 February 2007 (PST)

New Liebeslieder-Walzer by Johannes Brahms

Hi John, apparently you're responsible for the addition of a broken link to an hypothetical complete edition of the New Liebeslieder-Walzer, op. 65 (compare Brahms' page as of October 1, 2006 with the previous revision. Do you have such a file, or was is simply an oversight? -- Arthur 2007-02-21 07:13 CET (06:13 UTC)

Copyright text: O God, beyond all praising

Hi John,

See Talk:O God, Beyond all Praising (Gustav Holst) where Douglas Walczak points out that the text is copyright 1982. Do you have permission to use the text?

-- Chucktalk Giffen 04:50, 27 September 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for checking. No, I do not have permission. Remove the score. - JHF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnhenryfowler (talkcontribs) on 16:08, 27 September 2007.

Elgar Score - The Spirit of the Lord

Hi John. I've left a reply to your message on my talk page. --Bobnotts talk 07:13, 8 August 2007 (PDT)

BTW I've submitted the final edits of the Elgar. Found 2 wrong notes in Accomp. I'm sure you can find at least one more if you have the time... Best to you ! - JHF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnhenryfowler (talkcontribs) on 15:13, 27 September 2007.
Hi John. Thanks for that - I'll have a good look when I've got a minute (this seems to be increasingly in the distant future as more jobs on here pop up but there you go...) --Bobnotts talk 21:32, 3 October 2007 (PDT)

Pablo Casalsi

Hi John. I notice that you have created this page then marked it for deletion. May I ask why? --Bobnotts talk 07:13, 12 August 2007 (PDT)

In making the page for Pablo Casals I mistyped the page name, and didn't notice the error till I had saved it. The page had the eroneous name of ...Casalsi instead of ...Casals. Any news on when the CPDL management strike will end, and we can get score announcements posted on a daily basis again ? Johnhenryfowler 10:21, 12 August 2007 (PDT)
Thanks for clearing that up. I haven't heard anything, I'm afraid. Chuck does the recent score list and as you've seen, he's not got much free time at the mo. --Bobnotts talk 04:33, 13 August 2007 (PDT)

Last name redirects - check for more than one last name!!!

Hi John,

I just changed your redirect page Harris (pointing to the (unhosted) composer William H. Harris) to point to Harris (disambiguation) which I created, because the hosted composer Cuthbert Harris is already represented at CPDL. I've been trying to chase down other possible composers and/or contributors at CPDL which might have last names coinciding with your last name redirects ... it is a frustrating process, because the last name redirect makes a search for the others very difficult.

Perhaps before creating last name redirects in the future, maybe you could do a search on the last name in question and see whether any other persons (composers, arrangers, editors, lyricists,...) share that last name; if so, then a disambiguation page should be created instead.

Originally, last name redirects were created for the most popular composers, and now it seems to be devolving into a last name redirect for everyone, including unhosted composers. I am not at all sure that last name redirects for unhosted composers are needed, especially if a simple search on the last name will produce the composer page in question. I didn't delete the Harris (redirect) page to try, but I'm guessing that with Harris deleted, a search on Harris would produce both William and Cuthbert.

Maybe I'm way off base here, and if you think this should be discussed in the forums, that's okay with me. Anyway, thanks for putting up new composer pages, even if they are unhosted!! -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:28, 2 October 2007 (PDT)

Hi again, John... I got your reply on my talk page. You didn't step on a Harris disambiguation page; instead, you made it necessary either (1) to delete the Harris redirect to Wm. H. Harris or (2) to create a Harris disambig page and change the Harris redirect to point to (newly created) Harris (disambiguation). I chose to do the latter out of deference to your changes on the N.C.A.Book. I have no qualms about making pages for unhosted composers (or to providing external links to where their works are published) ... my only concern is about the advisability of making last name redirects for such composers when a simple search on their last names will suffice (unless there just happen to be several composers with the same last name). Good grief, I'm a composer, and (*grin*) I don't have a last name redirect!! -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:58, 2 October 2007 (PDT)

Ruggero Leoncavallo

Hi John I've just restored the unhosted part of the composer cat for this page that you removed in a recent edit. I can't see any scores of this composer on CPDL which is why I restored the cat. Incidentally, I've just replied to your message on my talk page. --Bobnotts talk 03:08, 8 October 2007 (PDT)

Use of Templates delnow and delreq

Hi John. I just changed your insertion of Template:delreq on Angel Gabriel (The) (Andy Miller) [note:link removed as page now deleted - Bobnotts 2008-11-04] to get the template to work properly. The delnow and delreq templates must be substituted ... that is to say, you must type:

either {{subst:delnow|reason|user}}
or {{subst:delreq|reason|user}}

Simply typing {{delnow|reason|user}} or {{delreq|reason|user}} doesn't work properly for putting the sort key (date stamp) in the appropriate category Category:Delete immediately or Category:Delete requests.

I see you are doing a great job of getting the works in the various choral collections put up and linked (when present) to scores available here at CPDL. You're doing a great job and it's a valuable service! Many thanks. -- Chucktalk Giffen 07:24, 19 October 2007 (PDT)

Please check the sheet music before putting up Template:a cappella

Hi John,

Before putting Template:a cappella on a score page, would you please check that all the scores on that page are indeed a cappella scores? I've already removed the template from:

I'm sure there are others, but I only just got going on correcting these. (It was Gesu Bambino that caught my attention, since I used that piece last Christmas with my choir and knew it was accompanied.)

Also, I wonder, should standard 4-part hymns be categorized as a cappella? I'm not sure, since for the most part I'm used to hearing the accompanied in church. Of course, I suppose most of them could be (and some are) sung a cappella on occasion. It's a muddy area! -- Chucktalk Giffen 12:01, 22 October 2007 (PDT)

Sorry Chuck. I did the first 200 works from the Carols subcat. If no instruments were listed, then I put in the A-cappella template. I guess you found 5 that weren't.
I'm working on the next 200 now. I'll open up the score file before assuming a-cappella. As far as the "Grey area" if it has a piano reduction on separate staff I add "or keyboard" after the a-cappella template, and note it in the edition notes as "with piano reduction". Works with just vocal lines I count as a-cappella. I haven't done a round (cannon) yet, but suppose I make it a-cappella as well. Johnhenryfowler 05:32, 26 October 2007 (PDT)

Carols for Choirs 2

Hi John. I was just about to go and apply the collection template to this page but I've noticed that you've split the collection into different headings depending on the festival that they are suitable for (rather than alphabetical order by title). Did you have a particular rationale for doing this? I'm fairly ambivalent towards the organisation but it makes it slightly easier to apply the new style of page organisation if the contents are listed according to the number in the publication... Also, I'd have the title as "Carols for Choirs 2" or "Carols for Choirs Volume 2" rather than "Carols For Choirs-Vol2". What are your thoughts on that? Incidentally, you appear to have two user talk pages, this one and User talk:John Henry Fowler. Would you object to my merging them? I just think it's easier to have everything together on one page. All the best --Bobnotts talk 05:10, 26 October 2007 (PDT)

Only reason for the organization was that was the way Oxford had it for that volume. Feel free to change.
I log in as johnhenryfowler, and I think Chuck set up redirects already.
The other username is an artifact from early days where my pswd was changed, and I just set up the johnhenryfowler account instead. I've pretty much adapted this account name everywhere now, so to change it would be a pain.
I'm not committed to the names with the hyphens. Changet all four as you see fit. Johnhenryfowler 05:26, 26 October 2007 (PDT)
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I've just merged the talk pages so that all of the disucssion on User talk:John Henry Fowler is now here and User talk:John Henry Fowler is a redirect to this page. I'll go ahead with the Carols for Choirs pages when I get a minute. Regards --Bobnotts talk 06:19, 26 October 2007 (PDT)
Hi John. I've just been looking at this page and there are many discrepancies from what OUP say the contents are on their website and the contents page of my (old - pub. 1970) copy. For instance, "A babe is born I wys" is listed twice on the OUP list. Do you have a newer edition of the collection? --Bobnotts talk 15:05, 4 November 2007 (PST)
I do have a more recent copy. I'll check into the discrepancies. It may be a messup that happened in

transcription into the newer format. Johnhenryfowler 17:18, 4 November 2007 (PST)

Using a cappella template

Hi John. I've just sorted the formatting of this page. It seems that you typed {{a cappella}} or piano. on the "Instruments" line but unfortunately the "or piano" part was knocked down onto the following line. This is because of a line break in the template. If you want to mark a score page as "a cappella or piano" in the future, may I suggest that you use the new template that I've just created? It is Template:a cappella or piano and outputs:

[EDIT (bobnotts 2007-11-16): template now deleted]

You may find the "show preview" button useful when editing pages to see if the code that you have typed has translated into what you want to see on the page. I've re-edited a few pages that you have added lyrics to, etc., usually because you've forgotton to add the text template. I don't mind at all but it would save time if you could use the preview button and add it when you need to :-) Thanks --Bobnotts talk 10:06, 27 October 2007 (PDT)

Hi Bob, I'll start using the new template so the instuments are presented all on one line. Sorry about some redundant saves, I'm often missing something I add later, and I've had some unfortunate saves where it informs me the session disconnected (and 2 hours of lyric entry is lost...) so I have been trying to save at least each time I am called away from the computer, or ever 1/2 hour or so. The good news is I have looked at all 400 or so "Carols", and added lyrics to about 80% of them. I did no edition combining because I have no idea what Standard to use to combine. Some editions stray far away from the original carol, and even though they have the same name as the carol I'd keep them separate... Johnhenryfowler 10:15, 27 October 2007 (PDT)
John: I didn't mean to detract from what you've achieved over the past week (or two?); sorry if it seemed like that. Having all the texts of the carols is really useful for users (I know - I am a librarian for a choir that uses CPDL rather a lot!) and also, a person searching the internet for part of the text of a carol might stumble across CPDL, having never used it before. This is especially true as Christmas draws near! I understand your concern for losing work after the session is lost... I had this problem some time ago. Now, I get the error message saying that my session has timed out and I can't save the page but I can rescue the code, copy it to a notepad window, go back, click on "article" then "edit" then cut and paste and save successfully. Perhaps it's because of having the latest version of Internet Explorer... I'm not sure. In any case, clicking on "Show preview" seems to refresh the session, so to speak, so you could try that. Ha ha, ironically, my session just timed out... and I did exactly what I just suggested. As for merging pages, often these need to be judged on a case by case basis. I'll crib a merge template from Wikipedia for use here and let you know when I've got it working... --Bobnotts talk 10:52, 27 October 2007 (PDT)

Reverted edit

Hi John. I just reverted your edit to Duets from Orpheus Britannicus (Henry Purcell) in which you added a link to the editor's website. I removed that link in a previous edit because I don't think that it's appropriate to have any links to a site which hosts (potentially) illegal content from a page about that content on CPDL. --Bobnotts talk 13:14, 6 November 2007 (PST)


I got the link to his website from his user page. I got to his user page by clicking on his editor: link on the works page for Duets from Orpheus Britannicus (Henry Purcell) Do we remove all user's WWW links from CPDL because he hosts on his website a work wich might be copyrighted ? A user could go to any works page Mr Hossell put up to "discover" his WWW site. A google search would probably work to dicover it too. The next step would be to tell the contributer to remove the questionable file from his WWW site. I think this is a bit to draconian. Johnhenryfowler 15:48, 6 November 2007 (PST)

Links to score files from new hymn tune score pages

Hi John. I just noticed a broken link on one of the new hymn tunes that you added. Then I went to check the rest of the new score pages and found a plethora of broken links. I have corrected the following:

and I have noted that the following have broken links but I don't have the time to fix them at the moment (and there may be more):

I know this is a simple spelling error in your uploads but would you please double check the links in the future? It would save a lot of time. Good job otherwise for indexing all these hymns on CPDL, will be a really useful resource. --Bobnotts talk 03:44, 15 November 2007 (PST)

Sorry to trouble you with broken links, but I was in the middle of my updates when I needed to call it a night, and, of course you jumped on the task of checking them before I was done. I always check out each link from each page when I'm done. (I'm done up through "Morning" in SSWesley's list.) Johnhenryfowler 06:43, 15 November 2007 (PST)
That's ok - this is a collaborative effort after all :-) I didn't realise that you went through a process of adding a bulk of scores then checking the links - sorry for butting in. I wonder though - being listed as the "editor" of these scores may not be appropriate... would "contributor" be better, do you think? I'll happily change the pages if that's ok with you. Regards --Bobnotts talk 04:53, 16 November 2007 (PST)

Well, before I'm done I want to make the NWC file cleaner, and will be editing them - hence "Editor". I'll also be adding a Sibelius edition for my favorites. I think "Editor" is best, since the value added is the works page, and the Cyber Hymnal credit is built into each page anyway in two places. I don't feel strongly either way. The quandry was that since the Cyber Hymnal didn't actively contribute (but allows their use specifically through their PD copyright terms), them I didn't want to list them as the "Editor" - quite apart from the fact that they ( Cyber-Hymnal) aren't a "person", and the "Editor" should be someone at the end of an email address who is "responsible" for the edition... Johnhenryfowler 05:23, 16 November 2007 (PST)

I understand why you didn't add Cyber-Hymnal as the editor, the reason that you give for that is a good one to my mind. However, I disagree with your assertion that the term "editor" should be denoted because of the "value added" to the score page. As far as I'm concerned, the name in the edition info refers to that individual edition, not to whatever extra information has been added to the score page. If you alter the NWC files to make them cleaner then I think you should be considered the editor because that would be a new edition. But when you copy the files from one site to another, I don't believe that makes you an editor because you have not altered the files. I maintain that I think the term "Contributor" would be best until/unless you alter the files; then you become an "Editor" in my opinion because it would be a new edition. Don't get me wrong - I think all the work that you're doing to add hymns to CPDL is great but I think we should be completely open about this notion of being an "editor" on CPDL. --Bobnotts talk 07:54, 16 November 2007 (PST)

Hi Bob, As I said before, Editor: / Contributer: / Grunt:, whatever. There are 51 hymn pages I have done, and if you would like to change all 51 already submitted pages I'll make the new ones say whatever you want. It is not important to me. I am the editor of 150 or so "real" editions in Encore, Finale, and Sibelius. I have been "open" about the submitted hymns, giving credit on the individual works pages, as well as the "Deep Link" to the Cyber Hymnal page that Noel hates. Since whatever we call this: Editor: / Contributer: / Grunt:, whatever, this should be a new "Standard", so I'd get the other admins to OK whatever the term we use for "A contributer who has added a work which was not (yet) edited by that person, but none the less took the time to make the works page, annotate the links on the composer page, make the PDF file, and add the lyrics to the page, and format the lyrics". When I clean up the NWC files I'll change the notation from "Contributer" to "Editor" (personally I'm favoring Grunt... - just kidding... ) Johnhenryfowler 08:55, 16 November 2007 (PST)

Adding hymns

Hi John. As I went to check the latest discussion about how to organise hymns on CPDL, it occured to me that when the discussion has concluded, it may be necessary to alter your new hymn tune pages in line with the new standard. Do you think it would be better to hold off adding any more hymns until a standard is agreed? That way, there wouldn't have to be a lot of duplication of work... just a thought.

Also, I've just seen Ralph Vaughan Williams and seen how you've organised the hymns into an indented numbered list. Is this the chronological order that Vaughan Williams composed the tunes or have you numbered them for some other reason? --Bobnotts talk 04:01, 21 November 2007 (PST)

It just acted to "count" the number of hymns. It is an alphabetical list. As far as holding off entering any new hymns, I'm inclined just to continue doing what I'm doing. At least it is all done the same way, and there are the other 485 hymns to change anyway. Getting a standard written down would then allow me to go back and reorganize (knowing it's not a waste of time...) Talking about waste of time, do we know if the work of the last 2 months ever got backed up? Johnhenryfowler 04:17, 21 November 2007 (PST)

Duplicate page

Hi John. I've just deleted the page which you recently restored, Sie, wie ist die Welle klar, Op. 52, No. 14 (Johannes Brahms), because it is an almost exact duplicate of the score page for the work which already exists and is correctly named, it is here: Sieh, wie ist die Welle klar, Op. 52, No. 14 (Johannes Brahms). I have corrected the link on Johannes Brahms - list of choral works so that it points to the correct page. I hope this is all in order. Regards --Bobnotts talk 09:21, 21 January 2008 (PST)

I found it missing, and the link RED. Did you retore it from a previous revision? I didn't check prior revs, but just made a new page (with the missing h in the name - opps ! ) Johnhenryfowler 12:38, 21 January 2008 (PST)

I didn't restore the page at all - it already existed and was linked to from the main Johannes Brahms page but not the page ordered by opus no. It's no problem :-) --Bobnotts talk 00:39, 22 January 2008 (PST)

Brahms alphabetical page

Hi John. I've just seen the work you've been doing over at Brahms' corner of CPDL - it looks great! I was just going to suggest splitting the main Brahms page into 2 sections - choral works & solo vocal works - to help users find the sort of music they want. What do you think? --Bobnotts talk 09:18, 10 February 2008 (PST)

Splitting on this basis would split up works like the Liebeslieder and the Neue Liebeslieder, which have both solo and chorus. Perhaps we could group the collections together in a page to reduce the number on a page. (Of course this means searching through more than one page when looking alphabetically for a particular work...) Johnhenryfowler 12:22, 10 February 2008 (PST)

Hmm perhaps keeping things as they are with an alphabetical list is the best way... --Bobnotts talk 03:35, 21 February 2008 (PST)

Brahms's Neues Liebeslieder - Opus 65 - now completed.

I just finished the 15th lieder in Brahms's Neues Liebeslieder - Opus 65 It is now complete!!! (It was started in Sept of 2006 ... ) and I'd like to announce to the CPDL community that the complete collection is finally finished, and encourage any proofreading people might help with. Johnhenryfowler 03:06, 21 February 2008 (PST)

Google Books link

Hi John. Great to see all of your new Parry editions popping up. I noticed you added a link to Google Books from The Pied Piper of Hamelin (Charles Hubert Hastings Parry) but for the life of me, I can't find where to view the score. Could you enlighten me? Thanks --Bobnotts talk 05:04, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

The built-in link for Parry's "The Pied Piper Of Hamelin" is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=P2YRAAAAYAAJ

and it worked when I tried it just now. You can download the score or view it there. Use the button "Read This Book" to read it there. Use the button "Download PDF" button to download a copy. Johnhenryfowler 06:41, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

I'm afraid I don't see any buttons like the ones your describing. Either I'm going crazy or Google have got some funky IP filtering system in place because of different copyright laws... --Bobnotts talk 10:48, 13 March 2008 (PDT)

Hi Bob, Sorry you are having the problem. Lets get the other CPDL admins to try, and see it we can sort out what's happening here. Johnhenryfowler 11:41, 13 March 2008 (PDT)