Talk:Ecce sacerdos magnus (Bruckner)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Ecce sacerdos magnus (Bruckner) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 September 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Discography
editThank you for drafting this page on one of the popular motets of the composer.
For the selection of the discography, the intrinsic worth of the performance can be assessed by using more objective features, as respectful use of the score and its indicated tempo, the quality of the sound produced by the used instruments or the voice of the singer, the quality of the recording itself, etc. A choice among the better performances can so be made, by comparing their intrinsic worth.
A critical review of the available performances of Bruckner's Ecce sacerdos magnus has been made by Hans Roelofs. See Critical review of 27 recordings of Ecce sacerdos magnus. According to Roelofs, the better recordings are by Best, Fiala, Guest, Jochum, Jones, Mangersnes, Ortner, Pancik, Rademann and Schäfer ; however, only three are following the score of the Chorale according to the composer's original manuscript: Fiala, Ortner and Schäfer.
You have selected three recordings: Best, Jones and Pancik. They are indeed among the better performances; however none of the three best is found in your selection. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC) --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 09:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'd just add that material in. I see no reason not to. Montanabw(talk) 20:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hello Meneerke, thank you for your suggestions. I have added two of the recordings you identify to the discography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Restructuring
editAccording to Hans Roelofs' external review:
- "De uiteenzetting over de muziek is hier tamelijk technisch. Ik heb even gedacht of het misschien overzichtelijker zou zijn als die opmerkingen meteen in het overzicht van die zes afdelingen zouden verschijnen, maar later ben ik gaan twijfelen. Maar juist omdat je die 6 onderdelen onderscheidt, is het bij het luisteren verhelderend als je de tekst hebt. Staat er bij de term “ritornello” weer een link naar de verklaring van dit begrip? Één regel eronder staat er een citaat dat niet van de bron is voorzien; het staat hier een beetje plompverloren – leest het niet gemakkelijk wanneer je de inhoud met je eigen woorden weergeeft en dan een voetnoot plaatst naar de bron?",
I have restructured the section "Music" and added (better) refs to it. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)