C. Guillet, last 12 Fantasies à 4 parties (1610) FOR VERSION 2.0
The third and fourth parts, with fantasies 13 to 24, of 24 Fantasies à quatre parties by Charles Guillet, as published in 1610 by P. Ballard. They complete the whole work with a fantasie for each of the twelve modes per b molle.
The first part, with Fantasies 1-6, has been posted here and the second with Fantasies 7-12 here , where some other details can be found.
As the previous parts, these scores has been entirely made from scratch using the experimental MuseScore version 2.0; they DO NOT work with previous versions (0.9.x or 1.x).
The title page, contents, prefatory matters and apparatus, being only text, are put in a separate file, written originally with {Open|Libre}Office and available as PDF; I suggest to get it too, as it contains useful details on the edition itself.
The whole work is a bit experimental, as a personal benchmark to put version 2.0 at some serious work and to see if and how it cope with; generally speaking, I think it does reasonably well.
Enjoy (if you like the genre)!
M.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Guillet_Fantasies_2.pdf | 116.58 KB |
| Guillet_Fantasies_2_1.mscz | 125.24 KB |
| Guillet_Fantasies_2_2.mscz | 129.79 KB |
Comments
Given the progresses in the trunk, a new version of these scores was in order.
This new version brings the scores in synch with the new file structure, takes almost all texts under the control of styles (sometime, custom text styles) and takes advantage of some improvements. A couple of errors have also been corrected.
As I am developing my own 'publishing' style, I have used a couple of additional fonts: Linux Libertine is freely available from the Net, MuseScore Text is under development as a text font matching MuseScore musical symbols (and not available yet!).
All notes given above still apply.
Enjoy!
M.
In reply to A new version! by Miwarre
Congrats on getting this done in 2.0, that takes serious effort right now! I get too frustrated with the lack of stability to use it for any length of time except testing.
I use these and other previous ones you've made for 2.0 as testing files for the trunk. Very handy.
In reply to Congrats on getting this done by schepers
Thanks!
All in all, I'm finding ver. 2.0 almost stable enough for committing to some long-term work.
Of course, NOT stable enough for production and I know I'm stretching my luck but, with regular saving (this means every few seconds!!!), I have not lost any sizeable work since months.
Also, until a piece of sotfware is put to REAL work, many dark spots do not emerge.
I'm honoured that my scores are used as testing files; however, I'm afraid these in particular are of very specific genre and may touch only a quite limited set of features; for instance, there are not dynamics or ornaments, as the pieces do not require them noted explcitly.
On the other hand, it is nice to know that MuseScore 2.0 can cope with the dirty tricks I had to use for the multiple prolationes in Fantasie 10, but I wonder how representative they are.
Anyway, thanks for the trust!
M.
In reply to Thanks! All in all, I'm by Miwarre
Bravo!
Maybe we should talk about producing a closed score version for performance on the organ :)
I'm currently engaged in transcribing Bach pieces for the MuseScore Organ Library I have just started - I'm using 1.1 at the moment, but if we can get the Aeolus Pedal Part Stable I'm intending to switch to 2.0.
In reply to Bravo! Maybe we should talk by ChurchOrganist
Is "closed score" an English term I do not know? Do you mean a 2-staves (SA / TB) or maybe a 3-staves (SA / T / B) version? It should be relatively easy to generate from the 4-staves version... (which can be freely modified, being under the CC by-sa license)
What the MuseScore Organ Library is? Sounds something interesting!
M.
In reply to Closed score version? by Miwarre
Closed score normally refers to the four parts being reduced to two staves with two voices on each.
We organists are supposed to be able to read four parts at once, but I'm afraid at my age it makes my brain hurt :)
As for the MuseScore Organ Library, it is an initiative I have just started on for producing the organ repertoire in MuseScore format so that musicians can read from a tablet PC or iPad instead of traditional paper. I already have 3 pieces in the MuseScore Bach Organ Library, and am planning libraries for the French and German Baroque and the French & German Romantic schools - not to mention the varied and interesting English School of organ composition.
The intention is for it to be mainly a subscription library, although some of it will be distributed under the Creative Commons 3.0 scheme.
Regards
Michael
In reply to Closed score normally refers by ChurchOrganist
Attached is an image of a quick conversion to closed format. Vvvvery quick (10 min.): many details remain to fine tune, particularly in the respective disposition of voices (and the layout is too crowded probably); anyway, is this the idea?
Best wishes with your project: "THE organ repertoire" sounds a rather wide scope... but of course, very interesting! I'm glad you didn't mention Perosi and the Italian XIX c. organ school, which afflicted (and still afflicts) too often too many church organists here in Italy...
Cheers,
M.
In reply to Something like this? by Miwarre
Yes, that is the kind of thing :)
Obviously it needs opening out a little to stop the alto and tenor stems colliding with each other.
""THE organ repertoire" sounds a rather wide scope..."
Yes, there's plenty to go at :)
I'm hoping that others may join me in the project :)
Regards
Michael
In reply to Thanks! All in all, I'm by Miwarre
Interesting that my and your experience with 2.0 are opposite wrt stability. I can't work in 2.0 without causing a crash on the most basic operations. I guess thats why you would have to save every few seconds. I'm just not willing to put with it yet, until Werner signals that the trunk is ready for debugging, and I don't see that happening for some time.
As for the files, the original Guillet you uploaded months ago certainly exposed either issues in 2.0 supporting older 2.0 files, or the underlying structural changes that affect their display. I see a pile of HTML-like code when viewing them right now. Depending on recent trunk changes, some things are rendered better or worse, so I think they are useful.
In reply to Interesting that my and your by schepers
To expand on my previous comment: I agree that ver. 2.0 is not stable enough for 'serious' work. However, according to my experience, with care (and some luck!) it is possible to use it, even for a rather large job like those 24 fantasies, by saving very frequently and, in any case, before and after any 'big' operation (like deleting, cutting or pasting largish sections).
I would like to know which things you find rendered worse by the new version: it might be an issue with the new version or it might be some change I made (I did made some changes); in both cases, the information could be relevant (for the developers or for me as a user).
Thanks,
M.
In reply to To expand on my previous by Miwarre
Both top and bottom of all the pages, likely the header and footer locations, contain HTML code... "DOCTYPE...". You can still see your header and footer text, but its buried.
Also, the positioning of the graphics preceeding the first system shift down about .5 cm, depending on the revision of the trunk. At one point a few short months ago they were perfect. Now they are shifted down again. Other than those two things, all else looks good.
In reply to Both top and bottom of all by schepers
Thanks for the details.
As far as I know, both the points you mention pop up when reading the OLD version of the scores (attached to the first post of this thread) with a more recent trunk version.
If the NEW versions (attached to the SECOND post) are read with CURRENT trunk version, everything should be fine; if it is not, it is a bug! (of either the scores or the trunk...).
As the trunk is still in heavy development, this kind of 'round chasing' has to be expected....
Thanks,
M.