User talk:BarryJ

• See also:
• Archive1 – before 2020
• Archive2 – 2020-2022

MultiPubList on Pratum musicum (Emanuel Adriaenssen)

Hi Barry, I wonder if you could help me solve a mystery on this page I just added. As I have many times, I used the Volumes template to distinguish between the three editions of the book. Lacking any information about the contents of the third edition, I proceeded to enter the contents of the other two, as normal. I then added Pub templates, using the vol= parameter and NoComp, since there are multiple composers. Long story short, the MultiPubList only displays two works in Edition 1 if I include the 'seq' parameter, and it includes several items in Edition 2 for which I did not add a Pub field indicating such when I don't include the 'seq' parameter. For example, Appariran per me (Orlando di Lasso) shows up in both editions in the 'Works at CPDL' section, but should only appear in Edition 1. What am I missing? I went back and made sure every Pub template on every work page has the no= parameter as well, but other than that I am stumped. - GeoffG (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, I looked into this a little, and see what you're talking about. I tried some simple tests, but no solutions so far. The two that appear in Ed. 1 are the two for which you have two Pub lines, not sure if that's significant. I will look into this more later, it might take a while. Thanks! — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Barry. As you can see, I added two Pub lines for those two works because the same piece appears in the same edition twice, with two different arrangements. I can't recall ever doing that before. Is there a better way to express that with the current templates? Might it be better to include both items on one Pub line (with a note about the arrangements)? - GeoffG (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, please don't change that, you did it the best way. There really isn't a better way, and others have done the same before anyway. The current problem is in a different area, I think, maybe with design of MultiPubList? — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a possible solution to the second issue, works being listed in both volumes when only one is intended. I modified MultiPubList to include not only "Category:Edition n" but also "Category:YYYY works". (Because yesterday, works were included in the list if they were in the "Category:Edition n", and some works were in that category but not in Pratum musicum.) My modified code is in Templates:MultiPubList5 (and MPList5). I applied my test code temporarily to Pratum musicum (Emanuel Adriaenssen) – could you please check the lists there to see if they are correct now?

And further, do you think is this fix going to function correctly in future? In other words, do you foresee a case where a work will have two Pub lines (from different publications) from the same year, both with the same vol word? If so, then I need to do more work.

I can deal with the first issue, using the seq parameter causes incomplete output, a little later. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Barry. That definitely helped. There are still four works showing up in both lists, however. They are all works by Lasso that appear in the first edition of 'Pratum musicum' (1584) and also appear in a Lasso compilation from 1592. As for other cases, it is already the case that a work such as Ancor che col partire (Cipriano de Rore) appears in two different publications from 1584, both with the vol word 'Edition'. This doesn't seem to cause a problem. It is also the case that a publication such as 'Il terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci (Cipriano de Rore)' has two editions from the same year. This also appears to be working properly. - GeoffG (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I made some changes, but there are still 26 works in Edition 2, including several that shouldn't be there. This is going to take some time to resolve. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Still working on this: there are works in Edition 3 that shouldn't be there either. I will keep going… — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Robert Barber (I) and (II)

Hi, Barry. I see that you have tidied up the pages for the two Robert Barbers, but I wonder whether their numbering could be reversed. You have allotted (II) to the Tudor composer and plain 'Robert Barber' to the 18th century man. Normally when there are two composers with the same name, '(I)' is allotted to the elder and '(II)' to the younger (as in Grove's Dictionary, for example). I realise that the plain 'Robert Barber' has more compositions than the Tudor man and also that his page was created first, but surely these should not be the criteria by which composers are categorised? It just seems illogical to me to have (II) coming before (I).

Best wishes, Jason Smart (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jason, you are correct; it was laziness on my part. I would like to lose the parenthesis, though, for two reasons. First, it looks odd in CPDL's syntax:

The night is come (Robert Barber (II))  versus  The night is come (Robert Barber II)

Second, there are several CPDL programs that might have to be rewritten, that search on the final parenthesis in a page name.

I will make the changes that you asked for. Thanks for the input. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Barry,

Many thanks for that. Much appreciated! Yes, there would be no harm in losing the parentheses.

Best wishes,

Jason Smart (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Funeral (Samuel Wakefield)

Hi Barry. First of all Season's Greetings and Happy New Year! There is a slight (but glaring, to me) underlay error in your edition of Funeral by Samuel Wakefield. The 1837 edition of Christian's Harp ( https://archive.org/details/christiansharpco00wake/page/12/mode/1up ) which you cite as a source, has first line of text "Stoop down, my tho'ts, that used to rise," -- where you (and several other editors through the ages) have the grammatically incorrect "use". Even the text page at CPDL has it wrong! I'm not sure what we should do about this, at least eventually. My preference would be to change all instances of "use" to "used" (perhaps leaving alone the sometimes abbreviated "us'd"). What do you think we should do? -- Best wishes for a truly great and happy 2024! -- Charles_talk Giffen_♫ 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you!

I noticed this also, but I didn't think it was incorrect. Back in 2015, I got the text for this page from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, which was transcribed from an eighteenth-century book. The oldest book I have access to at the moment is a 1735 edition of Watts' hymns, printed in London, and it clearly says "Stoop down, my thoughts, that use to rise." So, I thought, maybe "use to" is archaic, and should be changed? Or maybe it's a British-ism? I regularly change old texts to more modern spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, but this seems to be a different case.

Then (after your post) I noticed this web page. It appears that currently both are correct, though I'm not sure I fully understand the discussion there. And here's another page from Merriam-Webster.

Now I'm inclined to leave it the way Watts wrote it. But I'm not very sure, since I don't use "use to" in speech or writing.

— And best wishes to you and your family! Thanks for all you do for CPDL. — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ChoralWiki:Seasonal music

Hi Barry, Could you take a look at where these edits went wrong? I'm assuming the week ending Feb 18 is no. 7 and am working with ChoralWiki:Seasonal music/Test for now, which dosen't seem to be breaking the main page so far. Richard Mix (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mathurin Forestier

I am trying to post a work to this composer's page which you created a couple of years ago, without success. The composer page will not allow me the option to add a new work. I removed Forestier from the unhosted composers category, but that doesn't seem to do the trick. Is therre a glitch preventing full utilisation. Incidentally, you had credited him with specific dates. Grove, RISM, etc. do not know who he is definitively, let alone stating any biographical details other than periods when he was published, gleaned from anthology frontispieces. You seem to be assigning dates to quite a few Renaissance composers (especially French). Why? Inexactitude is no disgrace and is standard across all reference works; your implied claim of superior knowledge (I have already spent a fair amount of time double-checking that CPDL composer pages are reliable) puts all dates in jeopardy, and compromises this site's ambition as an authoratitve source. What is the problem with c. and fl. that an entirely new replacement chronology must be created?Cjshawcj (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with the Mathurin Forestier page was the page was not included in Category:Composers; if you wish to remove a composer from unhosted status, just remove " (unhosted)" from the Category line. I have fixed this, so works can be added now.

You are right, I have been inserting approximate birth and death dates to composers who didn't have them. The reason for this is to facilitate studies of music history, especially in light of several interesting articles, Horizontal History by Tim Urban, 2016 (as reported in The Washington Post that year), and On Horizontal and Vertical Approaches to Intellectual History by Lawrence Glickman, 2020. This has led me to construct CPDL pages such as Publications listed in chronological order and English composers in chronological order, French composers in chronological order, etc. (list here). Unfortunately, at present the only way the composer lists can be automated is through the Category:n births; I wish there were a template for this - but that would be a larger effort than I am willing to undertake. Cheers. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now successfully pasted to the Forestier page. Apologies for the tardy reply; I was awaiting an e-mail informing me of action but for some reason none came.

A chronological list of composers by birth is a ridiculous chimera, which can ultimately achieve nothing. Even if this were in imminent prospect, and it is not, to falsify dates to fit that listing is an intellectually redundant hysteron proteron. Dates should be in agreement with all authoritative reference works, preferably Grove. Rism is wide in its floreat dates, and these can be narrowed, so long as the floreat warning is retained. It is entirely unacceptable to invent history on a reference site.Cjshawcj (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Chandos Anthems

Hi Barry,

Many thanks for consolidating O praise the Lord with one consent - Chandos Anthem No. 9 (George Frideric Handel). I partly modeled another page name My song shall be alway (Chandos anthem No, 7) (George Frideric Handel) on yours, and then remembered I'd once perhaps given more thought to Chandos Anthems (George Frideric Handel). Please let me know if you have better ideas though! Richard Mix (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me! I had forgotten I even started this project. I am working my way through re-titling the existing work pages, so far only done Chandos Anthems (George Frideric Handel) and Chandos anthem no. 1. I will finish these as I have time. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I think I have standardized the titles now, and put each Chandos anthem on a single page. I would appreciate your review. I created redirects for the former titles; do we really need these? Happy Thanksgiving! — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for all the merging; I think it might be a mistake to omit HWV numbers and if one were to look for 'Chandos anthems' in the current complete works one might not realize that that name is replaced in HHA by 'Anthems for Cannons'. So I vote for Let God arise, HWV 256 (George Frideric Handel), though I'm unclear about how different HWV 249a & 249b actually are and whether they should share a page. A big pain to check redirects for "what links here" but I hate leaving red behind. Richard Mix (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, putting the HWV number after the title. I will make these changes. Since HWV 249 is not the only one that was revised (there are at least two others), I propose to just put the number on the page title. Thanks for the suggestions! — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! Richard Mix (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Il primo libro de madrigali a quatro voci de diversi autori (Girolamo Scotto)

Hi Barry. I left you a note on the talk page for your new publication page for Il primo libro de madrigali a quatro voci de diversi autori (Girolamo Scotto), but I'll repeat what I said, in case you didn't see it. This publication is a renamed reprint of Il primo libro d'i madrigali a misura di breve (Antonio Gardano), which I added a few years ago. On that page, I included the contents for the Scotto editions. I still think these are best on the same page, to help people understand the publication history, even though Scotto changed the name. Have a look and see what you think. Perhaps the wording on the Gardano page could be improved. Either way, I suggest making the Scotto page that you have created a redirect to the Gardano page. - GeoffG (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Goeff. I agree that the table on the misure de breve page should include editions of the diversi autori, and definitely there should be explanations on both pages. The relationship is very complicated.

• The Scotto editions were not a complete reprint, but some things were changed - page headers and contents page, for example. There may have been other changes, and I only compared two editions.
• Your assumption, I think, is that the Scotto editions were based on previous Gardano editions. Is it not possible that works or other changes appeared first in a Scotto edition? I don't think we have enough evidence to eliminate that possibility. For example, Non veggio ove scampar (Francesco Rosselli). You have it appearing first in Gardano Ed. 3, but its listing in Table 2 is apparently based on Scotto 1552. Do you know where it occurred first? I don't have enough information to answer, maybe you do.
• If a CPDL edition is based on one of the Scotto editions, I think it should be cited to that edition in a Pub template. If the pages are combined, then that cannot occur. For example see Apri la porta (Ivo Barry).
• Do you know the social background? Did these two (ostensibly) competing publishers cooperate? Or is this just a very big case for copyright laws?

I feel that access to more editions will reveal more about when changes were made, Gardano ed. 1, ed. 3, and others form both publishers. I would like to keep separate pages, until we know more. — Barry Johnston (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

My source for the contents and relationships of these various volumes and editions comes from RISM, viz. the various pages listed in the External Links. In my experience, when the contents of a book are listed there, they are listed in the order they appear in the publication. With those pages, we can compare the contents of reprints and revised editions without facsimiles, if necessary.

• My conclusion that the Scotto editions are based on the Gardano originals is not an assumption, but is based on the details presented on those RISM pages. Comparing the contents of the publications there, we can see that the Rosselli work appears first in Gardano's 1546 revision, which I have called Edition 3. It is only Editions 5 & 6 that are initiated by Scotto.
• From what I have seen, Scotto often reset the Gardano editions that he reprinted or revised. My impression is that Scotto was a larger, more prestigious imprint, that distributed quality books all over Europe. My further impression is that Gardano was a smaller imprint that specialised in music, while Scotto printed books on many subjects. Though I don't know about their relationship, it seems reasonable that Scotto would primarily reprint material that Gardano had first had success with, and distribute it to a wider market.
• I agree that it makes sense to add a Pub template to cite when a CPDL edition is based on a later edition of the publication, but I don't agree that a second page is necessary for that to happen. I have edited the page for Apri la porta (Ivo Barry) to show one possible way this could be done. Other ways involving piping the link to the publication come to mind. There are a lot of publications that were reprinted with and without revision by Gardano, Scotto, Rampazetto, Merulo, etc. and it seems unnecessarily cluttered to create a separate page for the printings by each printer.

I hope that the RISM citations give you the "access to more editions" you mention. This whole 'note nere' series by Gardano has probably the most tangled publication history of any I attempted to put in order! - GeoffG (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation! You indeed have dug into this very far. Impressive. I would still like to keep the publications separate. What do you think of the changes I made to both pages? (They are incomplete in a few areas). Also, RISM 1567.15 comes out as "Il secondo libro…"? — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the changes you made to both pages are good. I am always trying to find the balance between adding enough useful details for users and just adding clutter for users to wade through. In this case, it might be that what I added was insufficient, since it left you with questions. I imagine the new table and columns you have added to the Gardano page will only help make things clearer for other users. I am fine with keeping the Scotto page. There are certainly other examples on CPDL of Gardano and Scotto publications that are obviously related, such as Il terzo libro delle muse a cinque voci (Gardano) / Prima stella de madrigali a cinque voci (Girolamo Scotto) and Spoglia amorosa (Girolamo Scotto) / Spoglia amorosa (Angelo Gardano).

Yes, I too was confused when I first saw that RISM 1567.15 is titled "Il secondo libro...", but then I realized that it is only "second" in the sense that it is the second volume of the 1567 edition, which Scotto had split into two volumes after adding a few more items. - GeoffG (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

From a practical point of view, the Scotto 1552 edition stands out because it seems to be the only one where all part books are accessible online (but I may have overlooked something). Maybe this fact can/should be emphasized on the CPDL page. For me, this speaks for keeping a separate page for Scotto's editions. Ullrich Köthe (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Puer natus in Bethlehem text page

I don't understand the purpose of your latest re-drafting. Why have all the Latin settings been suppressed? Cjshawcj (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out! I believe Puer natus in Bethlehem displays correctly now.

In the past few weeks, I have gone over all the text pages, re-formatting the lists to automate them as much as possible. Many of the >2,000 text pages have not had manual entries for a long time; for example, Psalm 110. When I accessed the page in late April, TextAutoList had 49 items. The history shows that for this relatively popular page, there have only been 11 additions to the manual list in the last five years and 26 in ten years. At this rate, the page would be complete in 18.8 years, some time in 2043 – and this is only one of a thousand pages. In this process, I never deleted information, especially the useful notes many editors have added to some entries.

I explain some of this in a post on the Forum.

If you find any others, please let me know. Thanks again, — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweak. When I have more time, I will study the forum posting, and try and give a useful critique. Meanwhile, I have noticed one page where there are more manual listings than automatic, but I am having trouble re-tracing my steps to find it.Cjshawcj (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This gets a little complicated, though. In many cases, it's not the number of works in each list that's significant, but that there are different works in the two lists. This has happened for a number of reasons: where someone forgot to leave a LinkText template (hence my plea on the forum post). Also, sometimes the link in the manual list is to a redirect page, which of course doesn't have LinkText on it, so the automated list will show it under a different title. There are many different scenarios, sometimes it seems every text page has a different complication – a big reason why automation is a good idea. Some editors put unlinked works in the manual list – a good idea, maybe, but it complicates comparing numbers of works in the two lists. Thanks for your help, and let me know what else you find. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Melchior Franck composer page.

I have been working on the alphabetical listing today, to identify duplications, mis-titlings, etc. The main listing page looks terrible, being compiled in apparently random order (?possibly chronological, but not necessarily so). This appears to be for historical reasons, when an attempt was made to segregate listings by publication. This hasn't worked, and is not really appropriate on the main listings page, anyway. Would it be possible to suppress the alphabetical listings page (with its redundant composer name beside each and every piece) and to reformat the main listings page to give alphabetical listings (?possibly further split by language), losing the redundant dates of publication by each piece? This would more nearly conform to the standard format of composer pages.Cjshawcj (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

You are right about the Melchior Franck page. I have corrected the code so works appear in order of their titles. I think the results changed when we got a new version of dpl, and no one noticed (since it wasn't a complete breakdown, just the wrong sorting parameter). Thanks for noticing this! — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Deus tuorum militum I (Anonymous)

Hi Barry,

It took me a minute to figure out the use of Template:Pub on Deus tuorum militum I (Anonymous). It might be less confusing to use MultiPubList's pg rather than invent a sequence for 2 versions of the same piece, but how can one show the respective voicings on the 'publication' page? Richard Mix (talk) 04:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Ancidetemi cruda (Scipione Lacorcia)

Hi Barry,

I can't spot what's missing from Ancidetemi cruda (Scipione Lacorcia) that it doesn't display on Il terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci (Scipione Lacorcia). Whould you mind taking a look? Richard Mix (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Richard, A relatively simple solution – use NoComp instead of NoCo within the Pub template. MultiPubList looks for a publication matching the parameters in this template; it must include the composer-editor in this case. There are at least three other books named Il terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci ! — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish the documentation at Template:NoCo and Template:NoComp spelt out the differences. Richard Mix (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Merging Magnificat_(Anonymous_(Carver_Choirbook)) into Magnificat_(Carver_Choirbook,_no.2)_(Anonymous)

Hello Barry, I uploaded an edition this week of an anonymous Magnificat in the Carver Choirbook, unaware of the fact that Jason Smart had already done the same piece. He noticed this, and suggested the two editions should be merged into the same page, which I agree with of course. Could you arrange this? Thanks in advance. Kind regards, Bert Schreuder

Hello Bert,

Someone else had already merged these; but I needed to go further and standardize the title to Magnificat II (Carver Choirbook) (Anonymous), to indicate that this is Magnificat no. 2 in Carver Choirbook rather than sequence no. 2 in the choirbook. I am in the process of changing the other three Magnificat page titles.

By the way, to refer to another page on CPDL, simply place it in double square brackets, as I have done above. And don't forget to end your message with four tildes (~~~~). Cheers, — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)