Talk:Dow Partbooks

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

which Johnson Dum Transisset is the one in the Dow partbooks?

  • Posted by: Vaarky 06:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Johnson wrote a 4-part and a 5-part DT. Not sure which one the Dow should link to, though I believe it's the 5-part. It's definitely the 5-part White Lamentations.

Yes, it's the 5-part Dum transisset - there are 5 partbooks after all. The 4-part one is in the British Library, as is another copy of the 5-part, albeit in different partbooks. Yes, also White Lamentations a5 (a6 are in the Baldwin Partbooks (MSS 979-983 - the Tenor (4th part down) partbook is missing), also in the Christ Church Library.

Edward Tambling 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


I noticed that #9 is missing and there are two #55, is this supposed to be so? —Carlos Email.gif 07:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The numbering system is erratic and incomplete (despite the efforts of annotators) - when this damn world gives me a minute, I might make a second column to distinguish between Dow's own numbering and the modern system in use, to prevent confusion. Also, I need to fill in the comments section regarding which pieces are unique to the collection (i.e. found nowhere else) - Edward Tambling 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, many of the old cancioneiros suffer of this same problem in their indexing. Keep up the good work! —Carlos Email.gif 15:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
...although the answer in this case is that I added the number column just the other day and I'm only half-way through finishing it, as well as completing the contents - it's quite a laborious job and easy to make mistakes! I think Dow's numbering is actually correct throughout. --DaveF 18:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
P.S. any thoughts, anyone, on whether I should include all the instrumental pieces, or just the vocal ones?
Perhaps add the instrumental ones to IMSLP and add pointers to those in the Dow Partbooks index? That way the index of the collection maintains completeness, and users who view it are aware that there are also instrumental pieces even if not hosted on CPDL? -- Vaarky 19:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess it will depend on the proportion of vocal/instrumental works in the index. If the instrumental works amount for more than 50% of the vocal ones, the index will possibly become too "crowded" with items of just secondary interest to CPDL users. Supposing that the instrumental pieces are only those marked "Mus. only" in this List of Contents that I found, then I think it's ok to include them. —Carlos Email.gif 19:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I may get round one day to making editions of the instrumental pieces for IMSLP, but that's no small job. My interim solution (at least until I finish the contents - there are 120+ pieces altogether) is to put them in unlinked, as I've started doing. There's not a large proportion of purely instrumental numbers - only about 20. --DaveF 20:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Carlos - note the irony - when I left the table half-finished a few days ago I had 2 no.55s - in fact, in Dow's numbering, there are no no.55s!

Assuming the original index doesnt use arabic numerals, the numbering(s) might be handled thus without an extra column. Richard Mix 18:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it does. Milsom's index reflects this, and a (perfectly legal) copy of a page in the manuscript can be viewed here - Tallis' Salvator mundi (I), no. 20 in the collection. Edward Tambling 07:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)