P.S : regarding the word "style" I use, I'm not sure it's the best, as I don't speak English very well. Don't hesitate to correct me.
2013/5/23 Jacques Peron <[email protected]> > 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
