Template talk:IncompleteEdition

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Layout and scope questions

I am in doubt about how and where to apply this template. Should it be added to every works page that doesn't have a complete edition? There are dozens of incomplete masses on CPDL, for example, of which just a few movements are available. Another question is, should it be used to tag the whole page, as a banner (as it is now) or specific editions (as seen here)? In the latter case, we should change its layout to make it less intrusive and reduce the visual pollution. Just a text added to the Edition notes: would do it. After all, we don't want our contributors to feel bad about not having provided all the movements, do we? —Carlos Email.gif 19:26, 20 June 2012 (CDT)

No question my tagging of the Lotti is overkill, at least visually. I started another discussion at Category talk:Incomplete editions, but perhaps you're right and templates themselves are the key: on the one hand the present version is a kind of warning flag for readers, but we don't want it to be too much of a red flag to contributors. A conspicuous banner for the work info section seems like a good idea, with the usual ==Individual movements== section for "incomplete editions" as such.
"Incomplete editions" could also be replaced by "incomplete works". I wonder though if we should add a new category "incompletely preserved works" to "unfinished works" to avoid yet more confusion? Richard Mix 20:30, 20 June 2012 (CDT)

Choir parts

We have a number of editions which present a vocal score minus accompaniment; these include operas but also works that might be mistaken for a cappella works: Ave Maria (Guillaume Bouzignac), De profundis clamavi (Christoph Willibald Gluck), and Precatus est Moyzes (Bohuslav Matěj Černohorský), among probably others. Incomplete editions says "A listing of incomplete CPDL editions, usually some movements have not yet been edited. " which is broader that the template's "This CPDL edition is incomplete, movements have not yet been edited. " Do we want separate templates for these two kinds of 'incompletions'? Richard Mix (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it's my poor knowledge of English language but I can't see differences between the two sentences above (both mention not-edited movements). About lack of accompaniment, the needs of CPDL users are of an endless variety: choir conductors need full score, choristers look for vocal parts and instruments holders claim orchestral parts. So a majority of editions here are 'incomplete'. Claude (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the only difference is the word "usually". If there were an optional parameter IncompleteEdition|mvt or |acc the text after "...is incomplete" would read "movements have not yet been edited" or "accompaniment is not yet included." Richard Mix (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but what about unrealized continuo parts, where only the bass line (possibly figured) is given, but there is no realization for a keyboard player? In general, such omissions probably do not make an edition "incomplete" ... but I am often asked why there is no realization or if there will be a realization forthcoming. To the matter at hand, for larger works, including many Bach cantatas, there could be any or all of the following: a full score, (possibly) a reduced or compressed conductor's score, a choral score (with or without keyboard), individual instrumental parts, and a keyboardist's score. From the standpoint of a singer, the work is probably considered complete if a choral/vocal score is provided, possibly with a keyboard reduction for rehearsal purposes. For a conductor or music diretor, it might be complete with either a full score or a conductor's score (having parts in ones possession may not be necessary or desired). For the mounting of a performance using everything from CPDL, then all of the items I described would be required to be considered complete. For anything other than vocal/choral parts being unavailable, it might be preferable to have a template (or option to an existing template) which expresses the fact(s), not that the edition is incomplete, but rather that instrumental parts, full score or conductor's score are desirable (or "missing"). – Chucktalk Giffen 00:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
There's a certain understandable uneasiness over the word "incomplete". The challenge is to make a clear definition, and maybe to provide for making requests (such as parts) that go beyond it into the editor's prerogatives. To a conductor, a complete edition has all the information needed, even if not necessarily all the materials. This is much like the viewpoint of a composer, who can turn things over to copyists at a certain point. I admit I'm wavering over whether "incomplete" should be applied to Keyboard-version-only editions.
Continuo realizations might be a tweek to the BsCont accompaniment template, and I wonder if the other accompaniment templates could be used for requests: AccOrch for parts, KbdVer for orch reduction. It might be a better idea to extend AccOrch with an extension to specify the orchestration, though. We should perhaps have an AccUnknown template to use on Ave Maria (Guillaume Bouzignac), which almost got programed on an a cappella concert hereabouts. I can't see how it would be performed without a trip to a well-equipped library. Jan Pallas makes the right call I think with Laudetur Jesus Christus (Bohuslav Matěj Černohorský). The orchestration is clearly listed, but the reader is informed that reasonable satisfaction can also be got with just voices.