ars nova and ars subtilior doesn’t appear to be in italics elsewhere.
Apologies for not being clearer, I meant 'elsewhere on the internet'. These terms are now part of the English language, and so are not in italics. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in this article seem to be split (Apel, Yudkin, Wimsatt, Arlt 1973 italicize) (Nádas is inconsistent) (Strohm, Grove, Plumley and Reaney don't italicize) – because of this in my mind it defaults to WP's rules and since it is a specialist term (and a latin one), I feel like MOS:FOREIGNITALIC applies. (Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English.) Aza24 (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval era doesn’t lead where you would expect it to, (and I’m not sure the capital letter is right).
formes fixes should be in italics, however.
... including three ballades, a virelai and rondeau. - including seems to me to be incorrect, as all five are listed. I would amend to something like ‘... ; three ballades, a virelai and a rondeau.’.
... modern musicologists… is modern needed?
... was part of… - ‘... was one of…’ sounds better imo.
In modern times his most recorded piece the virelai A l’arme A l’arme, a proto-battaglia, followed by the double ballade Se Zephirus/Se Jupiter. - appear to need copy editing.
Altered, the confusion is gone now but it sounds rather awkward. Any insight into a better phrasing would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd lose the whole sentence, as with only five pieces of any kind to his name, it's not as if we're ranking Vivaldi's concertos, or Rossini's operas...Amitchell125 (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed Se Zephirus/Se Jupiter – I think keeping A l’arme A l’arme is important due to the huge dominance in recordings over his other pieces and the fact that many of the sources only mentioned him to discuss A l’arme A l’arme. Aza24 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done, I've been meaning to go through and italicize ars nova and ars subtilior (Ars antiqua as well) on their respective pages (due to all the books I've used italicizing them and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC) but hadn't gotten a chance – just did it though. Aza24 (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider replacing the online resource for ref 2 (Günther) with this, as only a registration is required, and the author/text is likely to be the same.
Hmm I would rather not... If I did I would feel too guilty to not go through the tons of online grove refs I've used and switch them to the print source... heh
Abraham, Hughes & Dom Anselm doesn’t appear to point to a citation – worth putting in the ‘Further reading section’?
Done – Oops yeah I should have removed that, I probably put it there with the expectation it would have something but there's nothing useful in it for Grimace
Ditto Plumley (2001).
Yes, the other Plumley covers all the info in 2001
There is a url available here to replace the Google Books source for Ref 13 (Apel).
Done
There is a url available here to replace the Google Books source for Ref 3 (Wimsatt).
Normally I would agree but in this case Machaut's dominance is more overwhelming than Beethoven in his time. To the point where all late Medieval music is judged in relation to his (hence why it's notable that they were contemporaries) I could adjust to a different phrasing like "...music of the Guillaume de Machaut (c. 1300 – 1377), the most significant composer of the 14th century, suggests..."? (I have a ref for this if needed)
The articles on Zacar, Trebor, and Solage all suggest reasons for their sobriquets. Has a meaning for Grimace’s name been suggested?
Not that I've read anywhere...
It seems in the text that Se Zephirus/Se Jupiter was written for two men. Is this correct?
I'm not sure what you mean – which part of the text? (Also – all of these pieces were originally written for men, if that's what you mean)
Apologies for not making myself clear, ...Se Zephirus/Se Jupiter may have been written for Gaston III, Count of Foix and John I of Aragon. - was the piece dedicated to two people, or commissioned by both of the men listed? Normally only one person is the recipient, or am I wrong here? Amitchell125 (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, that's a good point but the source doesn't seem to elaborate on that unfortunately so I'm not sure what to do here
Yes that's probably the best one to address the issue – looks good to me
Some sources disagree with the spelling of A l’arme A l’arme. Worth noting?
Good idea, added
Ref 3 (Wimsatt)) suggests Grimace "worked in the courts of southern France", not that he was French.
Well that's usually enough for musicologists to call him "French" – should I just take that ref out and just keep Günther 2001 which says that he's French?
...each upper part shares a contrapuntal relationship with the tenor, while the tenor exchanges "tenor function" with the contratenor part, usually when the contratenor is lower. - I don’t understand this at all. It might help to name the four parts at the start of the paragraph, perhaps in order, and perhaps mentioning their roles.
Looking at the text, tenor or contatenor appears eight times in one paragraph. Any chance that the frequency can be reduced?
Trimmed this down
The Chantilly Codex is a primary source of ars subtilior music... - seems to need a citation.
Done
...survives incomplete… - ‘...survives, but is incomplete…’ sounds better imo.
Agreed, done
Consider linking refrain.
Done
...shares identical… - ‘...shares an identical…’?
Done
I'm unclear why the top lines of the ballade are in italics.
As am I... fixed
One of two four surviving four part works… - makes little sense to me.
Rephrased, sounds better I think
I would remove the quote marks for "birdsong motif", I don’t think they are needed here.
Done
Link cadences.
Done
In addition, is redundant.
Done
It might be better if there was only one version of the spelling of ballade/balade.
Yes... that would be better :)
In modern times… feels vague.
I agree, but unsure what to change it to, any ideas?
I think it works if the phrase is omitted: 'His most often performed work is...'; 'Se Zephirus/Se Jupiter is Grimace's second most...'; 'Grimace's most performed work is...'. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
An external link to Alarme, Alarme—here—might be worth considering.
Added in works section – a good recording too!
The image is the wrong one—the WikiCommons uploader made an error. I've found Grimace's three works from Chantilly Codex and have uploaded them here, take your pick!
Lol the wikicommons uploader was me – but yes I was having trouble navigating that manuscript so I'm not surprised about the mistake. I appreciate your initiative, I've added the correct A'larme and a link to the rest in external links
Link Strasbourg.
Done
Ref 10 (Leach) names the rondeau ‘Je voy ennui de ma dame’ – is this fuller name correct? Ditto the other titles Leach lists.
Hmm not really, there's no real rules for things like this since none of these pieces have names, they just adopt the first line of their text as it, how much of the first line just depends on the source – the ones I'm using are based on Günter's list
According to this, the transcription of the text made c.1866 by Edmond de Coussemaker is now preserved as Brussels, Bibliothèque du Conservatoire Royal de Musique, MS 56286. I would mention this.
Definitely, added.
... have been proposed… - by whom?
Added, fairly certain it was Apel
Works
This section might be better placed above ‘Music’, what do you think?
Generally for composers/authors/painters on WP the list of compositions/bibliography/paintings is at the end so I'd prefer to keep it at the standard
Consider linking r; v (Recto and verso), perhaps with an explanation.
Good idea, added a note and linked
[F-Sm 222 C. 22] – it isn’t clear that this refers to a manuscript once in the Bibliothèque Municipale in Strasbourg, now lost.
Added a hover title thing
The Apel numbers need a reference so that they can be checked. (Apel’s French Secular Compositions of the Fourteenth Century seems to number the works differently.)
These are listed in Günther's list of works (e.g. as "A no.35")
The ‘Manuscript Source: Folios’ column appears not to be verified by Ref 2 (Günther), and so requires a citation. Use Leach (2010)?
It is for the online version (I can email a screenshot if need be), maybe you were looking in the print edition?
Leach (2010) gives MSS: Ch 53r for Des que buisson, not 19r as stated in the article.
Yes she's definitely the right one here... fixed
The books listed appear not to be editions of Grimace’s works, but whole books about stuff. Shouldn’t they be included under ‘Sources (Books) or ‘Further reading’?
Hmmm I used "editions" because that's the terminology Günther used. These books are collections of a lot of music, so while not just about his works, they're not what I'd characterize as "whole books about stuff"
Apologies for confusing 'music' with 'stuff'; however the point I wanted to make is that the books shouldn't listed here, as they cover far more than Grimace's works. The inclusion of a section called 'Editions' is confusing here, despite what terminology Günther used. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the idea (in my head) was to keep the editions close to the works since they're referenced to each other; does the line I added clarify the editions issue?
Imo note 2 (a discussion of the recordings) is not notable enough for the article. Can you justify including this information?
This note is effectively acting as a reference when it's used, if that makes sense. I've seen this done before in Ravel where "Ravel's are produced regularly in France and abroad" is sourced by a link to Operabase – unfortunately there's no single authoritative database for early music recordings so I included a couple to get the point across.
Note 3 (France was involved in the Hundred Years' War from 1337 to 1453) – requires a citation.
I just read this review and I want to thank User:Amitchell125 (in addition to, of course, User:Aza24) for the best review of an old music topic I've ever seen. I had sort of given up on getting GA status for medieval music articles because of reviews that didn't realize how little we knew about them ("Needs portrait"). This review made a great article even better. Thanks! -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert(talk)07:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
