Wikipedia:Peer review/Trobairitz/archive1

Trobairitz edit

I would like to get this article to Featured Article status, if possible. Some specific things I'd like others opinions on: I'm a musician, not a lit crit person, so if I've missed an important work in the literature, please let me know. If there's a section which should be expanded, or points clarified I'd love to know. Thanks very much for your time, Mak emi 07:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reads well; I'm just starting to go through it. I've found an interesting difference in the text for A chantar (by La Comtessa de Dia) -- the Historical Anthology of Music by Women (Indiana University Press, 1987) has the first line as "A chantar m'es al cor que non deurie" -- I'm not sure what the difference is; two different sources? Is the spelling of Occitan, i.e. Provençal, non-standardized, or subject to differing modern interpretation? --but that's a minor point.

A common request on music articles attempting to reach FA status is to have musical examples (i.e. sound samples). I can certainly help with a notated sample, since I have a score for A chantar, but it could be difficult to get a sound clip in .ogg format that would be GFDL (I'm not an expert on the rules on short clips of copyrighted material, and would defer to someone else who does this a lot). Antandrus (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Antandrus, I'll check on the spelling, there are a number of possibilities for the difference, including different orthographic interpretations, different manuscript sources, and different "Modernizations" of spelling. The Bruckner book gives the title in the article, and is apparently based on the manuscript Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, fr. 1592; parchment; 13th century; Italy. The only extant song with music extant is in Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, fr. 844; parchment; 13th century; France. (aka Chansonnier or Manuscript du Roi). It would be great to get a facsimile of that, or an edition if you could get one which wouldn't be under copyright (I guess we could use one as fair use, but that can get tricky). If I can find an edition I might be able to make a recording myself, which would be GFDL, it would just be technological problem to be overcome. Mak emi 18:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most scholarly editions of medieval song mark plicas differently from other ligated notes. The second note of A chantar is a plica (at least in the manuscript shown in facsimile). In stemless notes, plicas are often shown as x's. There is a portrait of Beatriz de Dia in one of the manuscripts which could be added. (Whether or not the photographs and microfilms of these objects are copyrightable is up to debate--scholars generally get permission to reprint them because of the threat of lack of access to the original if they do not get permission, but I'm not sure that the photograph of a manuscript constitutes original, creative work.) --Myke Cuthbert 02:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured for the "edition" (created from the facsimile) I would make it as easy as possible to read for people not experienced with early notations, and then if someone more experienced was interested, they could just look at the facsimile, which is right there. Frankly, for myself the ideal is a cleaned-up version of the manuscript, ligatures and all, but I want it to accessible, so that's my compromise. plus no one knows how plicas were necessarily performed, so why pretend they weren't full notes by putting an x when they might very well have been sung normally.

As for portraits of Beatriz de Dia, there is already one on the page. I didn't see one in the facsimile I looked at, which manuscript has another one? Finally, I think we're pretty safe copyright wise. I think it's pretty ridiculous to claim copyright on one page of a manuscript that's 750 years old. Now, if we were making a real full edition of the full manuscript and selling it, that would be a different story, I admit. Thanks very much, Mak (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to put into consideration: Per WP:MoS, only proper nouns in headings should be capatalized; example "Sources of Information" -> "Sources of information". Some inline citations (footnotes) appear before the period, some after, and some after a space after the period. Like is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, I would suggest that all of the citations be moved to after the period. The sentence "Bruckner discusses the difficulty in labeling the trobairitz as either amateurs or professionals. " is useless, as there is already a citation for the paragraph. Thanks, AndyZ 23:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've standardized the placement of refs and fixed the "Sources of Information" heading. I've added facsimiles of the extant music, scanned from a microfilm. They're still not great, but the best I can do so far. It's frustrating because the copyist didn't make it clear, to my eye at least, whether certain neumes were supposed to be on the line or the space. I'll see if I can find a better microfilm or facsimile, but I'm not particularly hopful, short of going to Paris. In addition to all the other difficulties with the manuscript, it has been cut up to get the best capitals, so the piece doesn't seem to be complete. Stupid manuscript vandals. I also fixed the Bruckner sentence. Thanks very much for the comments Mak emi 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a paper-and-pencil edition of the first verse (from the facsimile), now I just need to figure out how to get it onto WP. Anyone know how to put up sheet music examples you make yourself? Thanks, Mak emi 02:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're comfortable with the way it looks, you can scan it; if you send the resulting file to me as an e-mail attachment I'll photoshop it and make it into a .png or .jpg. Alternatively you could use a notation program (I use Finale for this kind of thing). Antandrus (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a PDF version using Lillypond and it's on the commons (Image:A chantar2.pdf), but I can't figure out how to make it into a .png. It seems like it should be really easy, but my brain is fried from figuring out new software all day. Also, with Lillypond you can make versions which look like solesme (sp??) notation, which is basically what the manuscript is in. Do you think it's worth it to have another version, or should I just have the facsimile and a dots-with-slurs edition? Mak emi 05:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it here Image:A chantar3.png (cropped, png) -- let me know if you want the Lilypond info on the bottom. :-) Antandrus (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to your first comment Antandrus, the Historical Anthology text seems to be based on the Chansonnier du Roi manuscript. I don't know enough about orthography to expound on the merits, but I'm tempted to use the version of Bogin and Bruckner, since they both are very close (see User:Makemi/Workspace2) and are more complete. I don't know though. Mak emi 23:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found other problems with the Historical Anthology, so I tend to agree that you should go with Bogin and Bruckner. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]