Talk:Puer natus in Bethlehem a 4 (Michael Praetorius)
Three editions, three different settings
| Help | |
|
The current three editions listed here by Praetorius are all distinct. The Mondrup edition (which cites the source: Musae Sioniae, Sechster Theil, 1609, XXXVI) includes six of the eleven stanzas, both in Latin and in German, but omits the traditional refrain text In cordis jubilo, Christum natum, adoremus, cum novo cantico. The Marco-cipoo edition uses the traditional melody (as in Puer natus (Gregorian Chant)) and includes only one stanza and the traditional refrain, but replaces the single "alleluja" phrase with Hoc in anno and the fourfold "alleluja" with Hoc in anno gratulemur, Genitorem veneremur. The Abel di Marco edition includes five stanzas. The Mondrup and di Marco versions use a different melody - the same as that in Puer natus in Bethlehem (Anonymous) (in the Online Christmas Songbook), although Praetorius modifies it somewhat in the Mondrup edition. Of course, Praetorius (like other Renaissance composers) is famous (notorious?) for composing several settings of the same text. The question is: do these works belong on the same page, or should there be separate pages for each of these works (with some sort of disambituation pointers)? While I'm at it, I've been going through the various "Puer natus (in Bethlehem)" settings at CPDL (there are quite a few), with a view to putting all the texts on a single text page. But, as with other texts, there are differences, not only in the number of stanzas used but also in some wordings. This raises a point about when is a text page (with pointers on works pages to the text page) preferable to having the text appear on the works pages? I've found it sometimes annoying (and note that others have, too) to try and match the text underlay for a work with the text given on the corresponding text page ... making it frustrating for the user who might wish to include text with programme notes (is this a valid reason for including texts?). I know I'm opening a can of worms here, and probably some of this discussion should be moved to and carried out on the Bulletin Board or the Forums. | |
- Hi Chuck, Claude had probably not read the questions you raised here and created a text page exactly for Puer natus in Bethlehem. Though I agree in part with some of your arguments, on the other side I think it makes sense to have just one place to gather all translations of a single text. Of course in the case of a text version too distinct from the others, it should be treated as an exception and kept on the works page. What do you think? Carlos 20:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Carlos, I hadn't seen what's here above. Sorry. I was working on the "Puer natus" works that had the Notext template ! Seeing they were more than two, I created a text page. Each time there's a difference whith the common text, it's easy to mention it on the work's page. Each time someone wants to know what is the common text, he's only one click away. And each time someone wants to read a translation, also. Concerning long texts, it's better than multiple long texts, along with some works whithout any text at all, as it was yesterday morning. Above all, this talk page is about "three works on one single page" question (on which I didn't change anything) and not about the "one common text on a text template page plus text specifications on the work's page" (on which I didn't delete any specification, just adding the LinText template for those who want to see the common text and its translations. --Claude 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| |||||