Talk:Missa Gaudeamus

	Classical music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not 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.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Source and attribution

Hrm. According to the notes I left @ IMSLP, my source for that was -- "attributes this mass probably wrongly to "Okenheim" - an old name for Ockeghem used even in the early part of the 20th century (Barrett, 1911: "Okenheim, Okeghem, or Ockegem, as he is variously called")." Not sure now what "Barrett, 1911" is. Possibly William Alexander Barrett's book English Church Composers, pub.1911. However, there is another interesting source. François-Joseph Fétis in his article on Ockeghem (in Biographie universelle des musiciens et bibliographie générale de la musique, I think) does list a Missa Gaudeaumus, which he attributes to Ockeghem on the word of M. Kiesewetter. According to a Mr. Ambros, by 1894 this was considered definitely the work of Josquin. (Gedenskchriften, Annales.) Not sure if any of that helps... -- Schissel | Sound the Note! 19:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Schissel:thanks a ton for your contribution, please have a look at how I arranged the Source and attribution section. I added the 16th century manuscripts which refer to Josquin instead of Ockegem and found an earlier (by 20 years) amendment of Missa Gaudeamus paternity. :Interestingly, in the Fetis encyclopaedia, Missa Gaudeamus was listed as Josquin work under the voice relative to Josquin! I avoided for now to put a direct reference to Rochlitz, as I wasn't sure about his role with respect to Liepzig Edition of 1838, and I couldn't find anything relevant in the issue 1826, 28 of AmZ referenced by RISM 201001100. But I'm going to investigate regarding this, even if I'm not sure of the relevance in this context. Please let me know anything that you think may be improved. Thanks again -- UneMusqueDeBiscaye | talk 23:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]