Talk:L'homme armé

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L'homme armé is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
This article is supported by the Compositions task force.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

References are a mess, but I wanted to get roughed out with references before I forget where I found it all! Linuxlad 23:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could someone who has access to latest Grove check the ref.3 to Lockwood's article?

Actually I looked it up yesterday--it's in the l'homme armé article, pretty much as you say (I have the complete 1980 Grove but not the newer one). Antandrus 16:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tune

Hi Linuxlad, Antandrus, and whoever else-- Please let me know if the tune needs fixing in some way; it's easy for me to do with the software... Opus33 06:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine (agrees with Phillips in ref 3) - article is now way beyond what I could have done :-). (The tune differs slightly from that in Colles in 'The Growth of Music', but then Colles (who was writing his first edition in 1912) shows very little empathy with cantus firmus generally!). Linuxlad 10:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It looks perfect to me! Now it will be running through my head all day ... :-) Antandrus 16:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] French text

I'm surprised at some of the spellings in the French.

  • I think that 'viengne' is a simple typo (it is 'viegne' in the score above)
  • I believed that French never had b's in 'doit' and 'doute', but they were inserted in English by would-be improvers.

Does anybody have access to an authoritative text? --ColinFine 13:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CF, you shouldn't be too surprised, because French was spelled quite differently centuries ago. And French spelling, too, had its would-be improvers.
I believe I got the words from notes to a recording I own, which isn't a very good source. A scholarly article by Barbara Helen Haggh, Journal of the American Musicological Society 1987, pp. 139-143, quotes the original text. It agrees completely with what our article has, including "viengne."
The typo, therefore, is actually the "viegne" appearing in the score, which I'll fix next time I edit. Opus33 19:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, the OED says that French as well as English inserted the 'b' in 'douter' in 14th-16th century, but then abandoned it, while English kept it. --ColinFine 01:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello CF, The plot thickens:
(a) I found a digital copy of an article by Taruskin that includes a version of the original manuscript of the song, the so-called "Naples manuscript". The ms. copy has several spellings I have never seen, including "l'ome", "arme" with no accent, and a very abbreviated version of "chascun", hard to make out. "Viengne" is spelled as we currently have it in our article.
(b) Consulting the New Grove, however, I find that they spell "viengne" as "viegne".
What I think is going on is that, because the ms. spellings might confuse readers, editors have replaced them with (whatever they think is) more normal spelling of early Renaissance French. Hence the variation in "viengne"; different editors exercise different judgment.
As far as what to do: (a) I will make "viengne" consistent, as "viengne"; (b) it would be nice to include an image of the ms., which is quite striking. Unfortunately, Taruskin's has various annotations he put in by hand and can't be used. Cheers, Opus33 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact, of course, looking for s sngle authoritative spelling is pointless, since spelling was never standardised in French or English until much later. But if there is only one surviving manuscript then that is in some sense authoritative. (The Jenkins that I am singing in next week says 'douter' and 'viegne', but then it also says 'chacun'. It's not exactly authoritative!) --ColinFine 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable v non-notable modern examples

It would seem more consistent with WP practice to refer to all works which had had a public airing... Views?? Linuxlad 23:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Linuxlad, so long as we leave out ephemeral pop culture uses ("my favorite videogame plays this song when there's orcs"), I agree. Opus33 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
He was armed because of orcs? Oh, never mind, different question. :) Agree with Opus. If the composers are notable--as these appear to be--I think their inclusion is valid. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I went too far in deleting the example of Karl Jenkins, who does indeed seem notable.

However, the example by Edward Gold is linked to a page on the classicalarchives site, which is a composer-submitted site for non-public domain works. Mr. Gold's recordings are all released on the Musical Heritage Society, who have a "composer-financed" business model.

There is no evidence that the "Symphony on Ancient Tunes" has ever been performed. The recording on the classicalarchives site is midi, other than the alto voice in the second movement. This does not seem notable to me and I believe that it should be deleted.

The reference to Christopher Marshall also links back to his own site, but the work is question seems marginably notable (according to his site "Vibrant set of variations on a Mediaeval theme, commissioned by Timothy and Hilary Reynish in memory of their son William, Premiered by the Guildhall Symphonic Wind Ensemble directed by Peter Gane in the 2003 WASBE conference in Jönköping, Sweden. Published by Maecenas Music (UK). Duration: ±17"."). However, it would probably be better if this linked to a Wikipedia page, which he does seem to qualify for.

I feel that there is much too much self-promotion which appears on notable articles such as this. I'm sorry if I went too far here, but I'm only trying to get rid of some of the Spam. Gretab 08:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've created a page for Christopher Marshall and changed the link to that, and have deleted Gold, per my comments above. Gretab 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for (what appears to me to be ) a well-argued reply Bob aka Linuxlad 09:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are the right notes?

Don Michael Randel has the tune slightly differently in his New Harvard Dictionary of Music (1986), and so does Christine Ammer in the Harper's Dictionary of Music (1972). Using these resources as a guide, I would change the "ar" in "Que chascun se viegne armer" from a G to an E.

Thanks, Anonymous. I did a bit more checking.
I don't know why Randel and Ammer have E. And, very curiously, when I listen to the song in my head, I hear E. I must have encountered this somewhere...
I would welcome further information on this puzzle.
Cheers, Opus33 16:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
The recording of the two L'homme armé masses by Josquin, by the Tallis Scholars, has the song done monophonically as the first track. While I'm at work and can't listen to it now, I'm almost certain they sing "E" there. (They also sing it in the major key variant -- i.e. B natural, not flat, throughout.) So I believe both versions may be in use. Maybe we could revise the file to show both G and E with the E in parens? Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this would be a good idea, though I hope first to figure out where these guys are getting their E from. Cheers, Opus33 04:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)