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 list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
