File talk:Gloria 5 (init).png

Unreferenced

Comment: What is the source of this file. Graduel Romain of what year? De quelle Année? comment: This is going to be delete? expression of anger, I just used this file to sing the song! comment: Note to closing administrator. I believe the Roman Gradual is not copyrighted however, it is still important to have the Original source so we can compare.

(don't be silly...) Source = graduale romanum, Vatican edition 1908. But this is irrelevant, all restitutions have been the same since ~ 1870, and the thing itself dates back to xii° century: the copyright is quite clear, it is PD-old beyond any doubt... Why would anybody delete such a thing, I wonder... Michelet-密是力 15:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My first fear, is that there may be mistakes in the transcription. Trully though has nothing to do with deleting the file but is only one reason on why I would like to find the original source. My second fear is that the music notation may have been taken from a copyrighted website. I've often seen these gregorian chants retranscribed by reputable websites such as the University of Montreal, etc... The reason I fear this may have been riped off from a website is because the edition appears to be fairly recent. The picture is of really good quality! Someone had to create the picture. Someone also had to create the drawing based on the original source. My hypothesis is that this was made recently within the last 15 years with a computer notation software. This being said, the creator of that file would hence be the source! Whom ever made that edition should be carefully noted and copyright status should be acknowleged (If that's you that's great!)... but also the original document should be cited. Did you actually open the Roman Gradual from 1908 or a similar urtext copy? If so, then there must have been some sort of publisher's notes or edition? Or did you find the Gradual in Rome, Italy? If so, on what date did you acces the book? Again, the reason I put it to you in such a maner is because it is important to clarify the copyright notice so Wikipedia's content is free. Otherwise this image, I believe should not be used for any commercial purpose. p.s.: Though I doubt that you copied the original 1908 version, perhaps you did? Most likely, you used a modern edition which has a copyright. --CyclePat 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well - it's written on the notice. Source = Graduel Romain, Author (of the file) = Michelet (me). It is quite clear, and there is IMHO nothing to add. I created the picture (by hand, using Power point and MS word - no computer notation software) using "original" source (good old paper...). It's quite recent, of course, since it was formatted less than two years ago and uploaded 01/01/07. Anybody can do that, it's a matter of ~ one hour's work, probably less, including proofreading.

I think there has been no mistake in the transcription, since I've proofread it by comparing quite a number of times the transcription to what was sung by a gregorian assembly, so it should be OK. But I must admit that this has not been the case for all gregorian pieces I uploaded, so some of them may still include transcription mistakes.

I don't remember which was the actual document used, I own a dozen (my dad has the 1908 original version in his own library) that all give the same version, of course. The one I used has probably been a 1908 edition, which is not the Vatican typical but bears concordant textus et cantus cum editione typica, imprimatur 11 decembris 1908 so it has been proofread all right, and is certified to be identical to the original version - but anyway, this can be checked every time the book is used in a liturgy.

Incidentally, you are making a confusion about "copyright": a recent book that publishes old material does not introduce new "author's right" (since the author has been dead for long); and "copyright" stricto sensu (the exclusive right to reproduce what has been published) has disappeared as such, even in the USA. When old materials are newly published, they may legally be reproduced (but a fac simile book would be unfair competition, which is another matter).

Michelet-密是力 07:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW: Your interpretation is not completely correct: you sing tree notes on the three podatus (benedicimus te, adoramus te, agimus tibi) as though it were a torculus, where there sould be only two notes (low one, then high one - not a third low one). Furthermore, try to make the text more fluid, the words should be on the same rythm as though it were a declamation (and insist slightly on the latin accent by making the corresponding note a little more longer and louder). Train yourself by declamating the text, then sing using the same verbal rythm.

Hello Micheletb and Thank you. :-) Your comments are quite constructive. I hope eventually to re-record the audio sample... then I will most likely take your advice into consideration and this time, prior too, revise my gregorian chant notes (not just try to recollect). p.s.: Have you ever seen the website http://www.easybib.com. I think it's a great tool for making citations. The reason I mention this is because I would like to eventually see a properly formated citation for the source. Best regards. --CyclePat 16:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)