Hmmm... since the site is coded in php, perhaps, when you
choose the gabc files you want, you could have a set of
radio-button choices that could apply a certain "style" to
the files you download. php could just run a check on the
files and apply the stylistic changes.
Then there would not be any need for duplicates, nor the
worry of managing them, nor the worry of the naming scheme.
Just an idea.
On 5/22/2013 1:22 PM, Olivier Berten wrote:
We might want to ask ourself what's the aim of that database. I
thought of it as an editorial tool, not a musicological one. The final
aim is to help people making booklets. Therefore some consistency in
the orthography is useful. When you make a chant booklet, it would
make sense to have the same rules through the whole booklet. Having a
i or j won't make any difference in the way of singing or saying it.
That's why I currently consider it's the same piece if the music is
the same (including rhythmic signs) and the words are the same
(whatever orthography).
Do you think this, for instance, should be split into 3 different
entries? http://test.selapa.net/gregobase/chant.php?id=2980
Olivier
2013/5/22 pierre <[email protected]>:
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]>:
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.
2013/3/24 Olivier Berten <[email protected]>
Hi!
Little by little, I'm getting further in my gregorian database system.
There is now an editing interface. It's not very user-friendly yet but
my knowledge in gui conception and programming is very weak... So if
you want to help, I'm very open to it!
You can also just proofread the scores and check the little "Me"
button under "Proofread by" (if you don't see any mistakes, of
course).
For those interested, I published the source code on GitHub
<https://github.com/olivierberten/GregoBase>. It's a mess... but if
you're very brave, you can have a look at it ;-)
Olivier
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Gregorio-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/gregorio-users
