Talk:Josquin des Prez/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Name section?

In the first paragraph of the lede His original name is sometimes given as Josquin Lebloitte and his later name is given under a wide variety of spellings in French, Italian, and Latin, including Iosquinus Pratensis and Iodocus a Prato. His motet Illibata Dei virgo nutrix includes an acrostic of his name, where he spelled it "Josquin des Prez".[3][4] Seems to be out of place. Having it in the lead makes it appear in the google preview and Wikipedia preview and blocks out the more important next lines: He was the most famous European composer between Guillaume Dufay and Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, and is usually considered to be the central figure of the Franco-Flemish School. Josquin is widely considered by music scholars to be the first master of the high Renaissance style of polyphonic vocal music that was emerging during his lifetime.

I suggest that the lines about the name be either moved to a new "name" section above the life section, or become the first subsection of the life section. - Aza24 (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see any problem with it as it is. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe:, perhaps I should have been clearer, the google preview (and wikipedia preview) is as follows:

"Josquin des Prez, often referred to simply as Josquin, was a French composer of the Renaissance. His original name is sometimes given as Josquin Lebloitte and his later name is given under a wide variety of spellings in French, Italian, and Latin, including Iosquinus Pratensis and Iodocus a Prato"

There doesn't really seem to be any reason for two sentences about his name to be in the preview/first paragraph and moving them would make the preview as follows:

"Josquin des Prez, often referred to simply as Josquin, was a French composer of the Renaissance. He was the most famous European composer between Guillaume Dufay and Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina, and is usually considered to be the central figure of the Franco-Flemish School. Josquin is widely considered by music scholars to be the first master of the high Renaissance style of polyphonic vocal music that was emerging during his lifetime."

Which is surely a better and more to the point, specific details on his name, especially names that are not widely used today, don't belong in the lede at all. Either way, if this preview stuff seems unnecessary (which it really isn't) MOS:LEADALT under "Separate section usage" suggests that 3 or more names be put into a seperate section. This seems like more than enough reason to move these 2 sentences. Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that this is too much clutter for the opening paragraph. Important information, yes, but best placed later in the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe and Jerome Kohl: I have, perhaps boldly, moved the information into a new "name" section. Aza24 (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This is a 2007 Featured article that needs work to bring it to FA standards:

• There is considerable uncited text.
• Media is an empty section.
• The Works list might warrant a separate List article.
• A copyedit is needed for tune-up, sample only:

• Little is known for certain of Josquin's early life. Much is inferential and speculative, though numerous clues have emerged from his works and the writings of contemporary composers, theorists, and writers of the next several generations. Josquin was born in the area controlled by the Dukes of Burgundy, and was possibly born (BORN ... BORN ... )either in Hainaut (modern-day Belgium), or immediately across the border in modern-day France, since several times in his life he was classified legally as a Frenchman (for instance, when he made his will). (RUN-ON sentence).

Unless the article can be brought to FA standard, it should be submitted to Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I may do some work on this article, at least on the copy editing part. Not sure how up-to-date the scholarship the article is based on is. I'm pinging Antandrus and Aza24, who might be interested in helping rescue this entry. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been aware of this article's rather awful state for a while, it is barely C class imo. Besides the mostly fixable issues listed above (although the prose is a rather large concern) the comprehensiveness and research is insufficient. Josquin is often (rightly or not) aligned with Beethoven for his dominance in his time, and just glancing at the research, a single citation from Fallows 2009 is hardly acceptable; the Milan period I don't think actually describes the situation correctly – although I'd have to look in that further; and other than the mass section, the rest of the music would benefit from expansion. In general I'm not convinced that the life section is as comprehensive as it could be and the influence section is also barely near what it should be. Looking at other FA composers of the same stature, Monteverdi and Wagner for example, the differences are especially evident. I have been meaning to bring the works list to a different article for a while now, but kept putting it aside, I'll try to do so soon (although it will be a pain...). I don't know how much I'll be able to work on the article now; I was already planning on working on it next year for Josquin's 500th death anniversary on 27 August. Aza24 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I had an initial look at the article and did some copy editing, but even this uncovered and number of problems in the text, including sourcing issues and possible WP:SYN and WP:OR. Even if the prose gets fixed, this will take considerable work to salvage. I'm starting to think a copy edit at this point might be redundant, as the article will need considerable rewriting and expansion anyway (if it is to keep its FA status). Toccata quarta (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's been a year; any reason/preference not to head to FAR ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What latin?

'Heinrich Glarean wrote in 1547 that Josquin was not only a "magnificent virtuoso" (the Latin can be translated also as "show-off")'There is no example of the Latin mentioned so can seem odd to read. Though if the magnificent virtuoso is meant as the Latin it is incorrect so should be changed. --90.210.1.54 (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the parenthetical bit to 'the original latin may be translated also as "show-off"' as that's what I understand it to mean - the original quote was in latin and "magnificent virtuoso" is the english translation. Wish I had a music library handy (and the pandemic was over). I'd dig into the source further to ensure it makes this point. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 20:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Image formatting

What is this? How to we check image licensing? Suggest a revert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not an image, but code that generates the score from scratch, thus avoiding any licensing concerns. Different editors prefer images vs lilypond. In this case, Kahhe has been advising me on what sections still need improvement, and we had discussed the mass section in particular.

Kahhe can we use a smaller excerpt? The replacement is too large for smaller screens. I've removed it for now until we can resize it better—maybe to measure 47 like the previous image?—admittedly, there's not a great place to stop before the end. You might consider putting the whole excerpt in the Missa L'homme armé super voces musicales article. Aza24 (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your thoughts. I've been trying out the score/lilypond extension recently and it has been a source of both joy and frustration. The benefits seem to me immense, since having the source code of the music alongside the text allows future editors to make small modifications rather than starting from scratch. It's also more convenient since both image and sound file are generated together. And since it is a fully fledged lilypond distribution running in the background, you have enormous flexibility on customising the score as well.

However, there is a certain rigidity in the extension which makes it unsuited for production. Lilypond is famous for creating legible and beautiful scores at all possible sizes, but as far as I can tell the extension only generates the images at a single, fixed resolution. There also seems to be no way to manually scale the output of the score, and there is a bug that if you put the result inside an image frame, the popup to "download midi" is blocked by the frame itself. The result is that while it looks great on desktop, the experience really is suboptimal on mobile devices, as you have rightly noted. Personally I think it's better at this stage to use lilypond locally for more complex scores and upload the score and midi separately, even if it takes more effort, at least mediawiki seems to then automatically generate different sized images which makes it suitable for more devices.

On the point of licensing, I agree this is an issue for embedded lilypond code since unlike uploaded files, there's no standard way of specifying the source/originality of the contribution (perhaps one can write down the provenance in a comment in the code itself?). In my case I have transcribed and edited directly from digital facsimiles of a manuscript, as is my preference. This should also be the safest option, since the copyright of even urtext editions seem to be a complex matter, whereas transcribing from old manuscripts is fair game because even libraries can only own the copyright to the facsimile images but not to the content within. Kahhe (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with the benefits of in-text engraving, though I have seen some of the limitations you mention as well, possibly because it is sparkly updated. Your rationale re licensing certainly seems solid and since the music itself is in public domain I see no issue there. The smaller score looks great! Aza24 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Cleaning up and such

So I went through a list of the masses to figure out what needs to be discussed still. Kahhe, per your edit summary I do think the Ad Fugam paragraph has 2 or 3 sentences too many, if you wouldn't mind trimming it a little.

I am planning on adding a little to the cantus-firmus masses section later today. I am also thinking that Missa de Beata Virgine in the Paraphrase section needs 1–2 more lines, given its importance. Besides the cantus firmus masses and Beata Virgine, I think all of the others are mentioned. Aza24 (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I've shoved the discussion of revision and de Orto/authenticity into the footnotes, hopefully that's enough.

I think we've covered all Josquin's somewhat securely atttributed masses, apart from the Une musque de Biscaye, although that last one is pretty early and slight so we can probably dispatch it in a sentence or two. Related to the masses, there is also the issue of his mass sections which we ought to mention for completeness. The two individual Credos (De tous biens plaine and Quarti toni) for example are fine works and should have a place on the main page.

There is also the issue of the division of the masses and the categories which I still have reservations for, but I'll get to them another day when I have time to state my argument in full. Kahhe (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)