Solesmes books aren't official. As far as I know, the only official chant book for mas was the 1908 vatican edition. But there are official editions of the missal, for instance, that follow the rule indicated by the link I gave (since 1962).
But as you write (and as it was metionned before), the goals you point out aren't contradictory : this is what I propose in my solution 2b. But without precise indication on how to proceed (a new tag ? a naming scheme ?), this is contradictory. I'm not against various styles, provided I can see immediately which style is the one of a gabc. Regarding the question of scripts, I think it would be possible to proceed in a semi-automated way : a script could detect distinctive marks of a style, and mark the gabc as "to be proofread" in one style or another. This is only an idea. All the best, Fr. Jacques Peron + 2013/5/23 Pierre Couderc <[email protected]> > It must be noted that if the database is dedicated to some specific > "style", those who do not agree with this style will have to develop > another DB. > We are to observe that there is currently no "official liturgical" style, > as style varies with each new Solesme book... > It is not sure that scripts can easily and automatically solve all > change of styles without manual check and correction. > So the goals could be : > - a database to welcome any gabc from any book with any style. > - a database allowing to develop various applications to help people > making booklets in various styles. > These goals do not seem to be contradictory. > > > Le 23/05/2013 08:07, Jacques Peron a écrit : > > So I think we all agree : the question is the purpose of the database : > 1. if it is a single *gabc repository*, there's no need to standardize > anything : everyone would have to adapt the files to his needs, possibly > with scripts… > 2. if the final aim is to help people making booklets : > a. either we want a single interface, without having the user to > wonder which style he has to choose ; then it's necessary to impose a > standard style (that should be, IMHO, as close as possible to official > liturgical > books<http://www.ccwatershed.org/pdfs/7681-abolition-letter-j/download/>) > ; server-side scripts could help converting other styles to this standard ; > b. or we want more flexibility ; then it's necessary (because I don't > think server-side scripts would really cover all cases) to duplicate files > and to easily see how each one was typed, either in the name, or by adding > a property to the file. > > I don't want to make a decision nor impose personal choices ; but I'd > like to know which decision will be made, to avoid subsequent waste of time. > > > 2013/5/22 Pierre François <[email protected]> > >> I, Father Pierre François, share the opinion of the other Pierre, >> Pierre Couderc. >> >> Moreover I think it is very hard to achieve a standard notation, because >> of the evolution of the matter, which we do not control. >> >> There will be necessarely some duplication of partitions: v.gr. even the >> *Kyrie* is not the same in the *novus ordo* and the *forma extraordinaria >> *. In the first one, repetitions are indicated with "bis", in the latter >> with "iij" or "ij", and there are many cases like this. For getting >> continuity in the booklets, I think you just have to remain inside of the >> form of the rite you choose: FO, FE or whatever, and that consistently >> through whole your booklet. >> >> Fr. Pierre >> >> >> On 05/22/2013 07:45 PM, pierre wrote: >> >> Mmm, I am sorry to disagree with many of us. >> The gabc database should not be a standard of what is "good" gregorian >> score. >> It is not to "us" to decide if we must use i or j, or mass of PAul VI or >> older one. We should remain open. "We" are a tool. Only. >> It seems to me that the only possible way is to have a gabc database as >> near as possible of each original book. >> If there are many different versions of one hymn in different books, we >> must have the correspondant entries possible in the DB. >> The fact that the entry is filled is another question. It will be filled >> if someone fills it. But the DB should remain open. >> This could lead to a standard "de facto", if some entries are filled and >> other ones are not... >> But that should not be "by design". >> The reference to the original book seems enough to recognize various >> variants. >> And I see no problem if gabc data is more or less duplicated... >> >> Le 22/05/2013 16:58, Olivier Berten a écrit : >> >> Well... I'm actually wondering myself... because I like to be as close >> as possible as the source but it doesn't really make sense to me to >> have different entries for the Graduale and the Liber versions. One >> could argue that we should use some standardised latin (same with the >> oe/ae/œ/æ or i/j question). >> >> But on the other hand the Liber gives a lot of information for people >> less litterate in that topic which could be useful aswell: accents for >> the people less used to the tonic accent placement in latin or noted >> psalms for people less used to psalmody... >> >> I also wonder how to deal with the hymns with one different verse for >> different occasions, or which are a port of another hymn... >> >> I'd love to have other peoples opinions >> >> 2013/5/22 Jacques Peron >> <[email protected]><[email protected]>: >> >> Hello, >> >> I'd have a question about the rules to be followed on your database. >> >> There are differences between editions of gregorian chants : >> - the Graduale puts accents on words only when they have 3 or more >> syllabes, >> while the Liber usualis and others put accents on all accented words ; >> - liturgical books use i in place of j after 1962, but not before ; >> - æ is often written ae, I think because they had no easy mean to do >> otherwise (but I can't be affirmative). >> >> So here is my question : is it better to follow the presentation of the >> source in every case (but some chants can be different between different >> sources), or to follow uniform rules ? In such a case, would it be >> possible >> to give those rules, for example on the Participate page ? >> >> Please forgive me if I made English mistakes, >> >> Fr. Jacques Peron. >> >> >> >> -- >> Father Pierre FRANÇOIS (http://www.romanliturgy.org) >> Bosmanslei 16 >> B-2018 Antwerpen (Belgium) >> mobile: +32 474 719 131 >> phone: +32 3 237 63 96 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gregorio-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Gregorio-users mailing > [email protected]https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gregorio-users mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users > >
_______________________________________________ Gregorio-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
