Talk:The Seven Joys of Mary (carol)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
English vs American[edit]
Are you sure this is correct? All the times I have heard this carol sung in England at the likes of King's College etc. it has been the 'American' version.
motet[edit]
I have removed this "It finds its orgin in a liturgical trope, beginning "Gaude Maria Virgo," in the medieval Catholic mass. Originally there were five joys; later there were seven." - as it seems all wrong. This is a text, often set as a motet, which in its entirety translates as :
Rejoice, O Virgin Mary, for alone thou hast put an end to all heresies.
Thou that didst believe the words of the archangel Gabriel. Still a virgin, thou didst bring forth God and man, and after childbirth thou didst still remain an inviolate virgin:
O Mother of God, intercede for us.
Retrieved from "http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Gaude_Maria_%28William_Byrd%29" - there are 5-part (ie 5 singer) settings, and no doubt 7 part ones too. I can't see what any of this has to do with the article subject. It is not a "trope" in the musical sense. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- The following quotations come from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
- "In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Seven Dolours and Seven Joys of Our Lady were commonly Five Dolours and Five Joys."
- "Such is the case with the oldest Breviary Trope of the Blessed Virgin, which is built upon the penultimate word, inviolata, of the Responsory of the Assumption: 'Gaude Maria virgo . . . et post partum inviolata permansisti.'"
- "These collections of stories must have produced a notable effect in popularising a number of other practices of devotion besides repetitions of the Ave and the use of the Salve Regina, for example the repetition of five salutations beginning 'Gaude Maria Virgo,'... The five Gaudes just mentioned originally commemorated Our Lady's 'five joys' and to match those joys spiritual writers at first commemorated five corresponding sorrows."
- But I digress. This article is about a song that is titled "The Seven Joys of Mary." It's not about the seven joys themselves. You have introduced a grammatical error into the first sentence by writing "The Seven Joys of Mary" are rather than is. Note the quotation marks around the song's title. You seem to be trying to turn this article about a Christmas song into an article about something else.
- Your second paragraph, however, is a good addition to this article. -- Chironomia (talk) 07:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is pointless to have two stubby articles on essentially the same topic. Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you've decided to go stubby yourself! :) You created a separate page for the seven joys of the Virgin. That was the right thing to do, I believe. But you've also appropriated at least one of my redirects. Don't you think it would be better to set up a disambiguation page in this case? -- Chironomia (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- I hope to take mine beyond a stub. I have taken the Dutch interlink, and I thought a very modest number of "your" (!) impressive array of redirects. I certainly don't see that a disam page (or headers) are needed - anyone coming to the wrong article will very quickly find the link to the right one; its pointless to send them round another set of houses. But if you really think it necessary, go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I look forward to watching it grow. -- Chironomia (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I hope to take mine beyond a stub. I have taken the Dutch interlink, and I thought a very modest number of "your" (!) impressive array of redirects. I certainly don't see that a disam page (or headers) are needed - anyone coming to the wrong article will very quickly find the link to the right one; its pointless to send them round another set of houses. But if you really think it necessary, go ahead. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see that you've decided to go stubby yourself! :) You created a separate page for the seven joys of the Virgin. That was the right thing to do, I believe. But you've also appropriated at least one of my redirects. Don't you think it would be better to set up a disambiguation page in this case? -- Chironomia (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is pointless to have two stubby articles on essentially the same topic. Johnbod (talk) 09:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Revisions to Article (4/19/08)[edit]
I made the following changes to this article:
- Revised one cross reference to read the Seven Joys of the Virgin rather than The Seven Joys of Mary because the former article is a fuller discussion of the same topic.
- Deleted a line of information that required a citation and had been tagged as such for a month.
- Deleted an inaccurate statement and replaced it with a statement that properly introduces the table of information. -- Chironomia (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Dates?[edit]
It is nice to have the notation for the melody, However, when an article is about an allegedly "traditional" song, it would be helpful to have: 1) the particular tradition (in this case, English? I'm guessing), and the approximate date, at least to the extent of something like "probably 17th century" or similar, if the precise dating is unknown.
Of course there could easily be different dates for the tune and the lyrics, and still another date for when the two were put together. Not all of this information will always be readily available, but I'm not seeing any dating information in this particular article. From the little given, the piece might date anywhere from 600-1960 AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)