On 16 Aug 2014, at 16:55, Sr. Maria Ruth OSB wrote:
Maybe I discovered the solution: Solesmes follows, in his editions,
Paris, lat. 12044 ms, a diastematic source that follows this simple
criteria: oriscus shape is determined by the following note:
- if the following note is higher,
Dear Friends,
Maybe I discovered the solution: Solesmes follows, in his editions, Paris,
lat. 12044 ms, a diastematic source that follows this simple criteria:
oriscus shape is determined by the following note:
- if the following note is higher, oriscus will be high right-pointed
(what we called
Dear All,
in books I have, oriscus shape depends just on graphic or editor's choice.
The only difference I found is in H.P. Sandhofe Nocturnale, where salicus
quassus and pes quassus have what we called oriscus auctus shape,
otherwise oriscus is always written in non auctus form.
In Christ,
Sr.
On 08 Aug 2014, at 21:28, Pierre Couderc wrote:
Well, I see the point, it is interesting but I have no comment: I feel
to be not enough competant...
I'm not competent enough either, but I just skimmed both Apel's and
Hiley's monographs on plainchant (Hiley's Western Plainchant, not the
later
Hi!
I just noticed while checking some files on GregoBase that Solesmes'
oriscus looks much more like Gregorio's oriscus auctus... should we
encode them as oriscus or oriscus auctus? or should we change the
shape of the oriscus in Gregorio?
http://gregobase.selapa.net/chant.php?id=4232
They are mirrored: http://home.gna.org/gregorio/gabc/#onenote
Oriscus is (go), oriscus auctus is (go)
2014-08-06 23:16 GMT+02:00 Conor Cook conor.p.c...@gmail.com:
What distinguishes the oriscus and oriscus auctus? (Just personal curiousity.)
~Conor Cook
On Aug 6, 2014, at 4:13 PM, Olivier
I guess it depends on whether you believe (or whether under GregoBase
guidelines -- which I can't seem to find anywhere) gabc is encoding the
intent of the music or the visual representation of a particular edition
of the music. If the former, oriscus should be encoded as o in the
gabc, whether
Given the introduction to the Antiphonale Monasticum available at the
first posted URL, I (given my position earlier in this thread) would
definitely encode this as o since the book is making no specific
distinction.
Regards,
Henry
On Wednesday, 06 August 2014 at 11:13:24 pm +0200, Olivier
On 08/06/2014 11:33 PM, Henry So Jr. wrote:
the Antiphonale Monasticum (1934) (...). I do not have this book, so I cannot
look through it,
Please note that you have this book.
Please go in gregowiki http://gregoriochant.org
seach in resources the link Gradualia et Antiphonarii
Point taken.
However, in this case, the glyph desired (let's call it a pre-1985 oriscus)
is not available in Greciliae. The pre-1985 oriscus and the gabc o glyph
both represent an oriscus, just in two typefaces. The pre-1985 oriscus
looks like neither the gabc o glyph nor the gabc o glyph.
On 06 Aug 2014, at 23:56, Pierre Couderc pie...@couderc.eu wrote:
The strength of gregorio is that it is independent of any camp. It tries
to be able to reproduce any book. Not to choose what is is the good book
or the good way. You can produce what you want with gregorio.
Being able to
11 matches
Mail list logo
