Talk:Gloria in Excelsis Deo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is supported by the Christian music WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Christian music. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Christian music Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

The mention of Mariah Carey near the end of this article seems highly ridiculous to me. There are innumerable settings and recordings of this text, in ancient and modern languages. Why bring attention to Mariah Carey in this context?Drkeithphd 02:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Move to Great Doxology

This really is its proper name, as the Latin Gloria in excelsis Deo is derived from the Byzantine, not the other way around. The first line does read "the title and beginning of the Greater Doxology used in the Roman Catholic Mass and in the services of many other Christian churches." If we're going to say it's used in the services of many other Churches, it's only fair to call it by its proper name. We can then have subsections on the Western usage and various Eastern usages. The current article seems somewhat lopsided to me.InfernoXV 14:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, because in the Western use, this name is far more common. Perhaps there could be an article named Greater Doxology (is it Great or Greater? Greater sounds more right to me, but I'm not sure), which would explain where it comes from, and include sections like "Use in the XXX Rite," and then for Roman Catholic (or perhaps simply Western Rite, since Anglicanism retains it, and possibly other Protestant branches) it provides a quick summary with a {{main}} link to here. Then this article could get rid of most of the first paragraph and a few other bits, and focus on the use of the Gloria in Latin-based liturgy, and musical compositions of it, which are pretty weakly presented here and on Gloria. You're right that given the first sentence here, it seems backwards, and it certainly is hardly fair in its presentation of use in the Eastern Rites. This would also be more similar to the distinction between the articles Nicene Creed and Credo. Rigadoun (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Good idea to have the separate articles for Gloria in excelsis Deo and Great Doxology. This avoids treading on the toes of those who've worked on the current article! The new article should be at Great Doxology - Velikoe Slavoslovie. InfernoXV 18:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music

The article has little to say about the melody - seems it's written from an exclusively religious and textual viewpoint. I've googled a little, and at least there's a version by Bach, two known ones and a lost one by Vivaldi, a lost-and-found one by Händel, one by Thomas Weelkes (listen) and a gregorian one too, listen here: Click and select track 2. Someone how knows about these things, please add it to the article! (Also, I wonder, how common each version is today for choral performances?)--Niels Ø (noe) 13:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

After googling and wiki-searching a bit more, I've added some wiki-links under "See also" to "Musical settings". (According to Gloria (song), there are also versions by Haydn and Felix Mendelssohn.) However, this is far from a perfect solution, so someone please help!--Niels Ø (noe) 13:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is no point in listing the musical settings. Because the music is part of the Roman Mass, there are literally thousands of them! Some composers (eg Vivaldi) have set the Gloria as a separate text, so these might be listed. In addition, some of your examples are incorrect - Bach's Magnificat is not a Gloria! Stefan 14:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's what I added and Stefan removed (except Vivaldi and Poulenc):
I suppose he's right we can't have a complete list, and several versions that I did not list are probably more significant than those I found. But I still think someone not familiar with catholic mass but perhaps interested in e.g. choral works might expect to find more encyclopedic information here (or a link to another wikipedia article with such info) than what Stefan left.
He says some of my info is incorrect - again, that may be true, but re. Magnificat (Bach) says that the original version (1723) had four christmas-related parts that were removed in the 1733 version, including a gloria between what are now parts 7 and 8.--Niels Ø (noe) 14:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, feel free to add settings of the Gloria to the list - I don't have time to research for myself. I have made a few minor edits to the list I deleted; sorry for omitting the Handel Gloria which is of course correct!
Re: the Magnificat. Bear in mind that the subject of this article is the liturgical Gloria as in the part of the Mass: the whole text, not just the first lines which were the angelic salutation, and the 'Christmas text'. The part in the Bach Magnificat, therefore, does not fall into that category, nor do other 'angelic Glorias' such as those in Messiah and the Christmas Oratorio. Stefan 22:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
It's difficult to "bear in mind" what you don't know. Why is it obvious that this article is about the liturgical Gloria? Suppose a wikipedia reader (like me) basically know nothing about anything called "Gloria in excelcis Deo", other than that it's a choral work that you've heard from time to time (and I'm still not sure which of the settings it is! But the description in Angels We Have Heard on High sounds right.) This article isn't much help, then. Maybe it's not the right place to add such info, but then it should at least redirect me to a relevant article, I think.--Niels Ø (noe) 09:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The original text

Would anyone be able to provide a reference to the original Greek text? Please.Muscovite99 (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation?

On User talk:Invocante I posted the following:

Andrew c has asked me to use your Talk page, not just edit summaries, to draw your attention to what seem to be copyright violations by you. Apart from printed sources that indicate that ICEL strongly opposes any publication of its copyright draft texts for a revised English translation of the Roman Missal, there are indications also on the Internet. I have already drawn your attention to this site. You could also look at this and this. And you could read Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia, but without getting it into trouble. Lima (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Invocante has posted on my Talk page:

Who do you think you are? I [Invocante] do not accept that in the normal understanding of things I am violating the copyright of the ICEL. The very notion of copyright on translations of texts as ancient as the creed or the Gloria is dubious but in any case there is a more substantial point. The new translation when it comes out will affect millions of the Catholic laity and the attempt to hide behind copyright is simply disingenuous. The reason for this are well given by Father Zhulsdorf in his reply to the ICEL letter referred to by you [http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/04/letter-from-icel.html here Indeed if we take the example of the new translation Gloria the Church has already authorised a new musical stetting of those words which is readily available from the Word Youth day website, see http://www.wyd2008.org/index.php/en/parishes_schools/wyd08_mass_setting. This availability on the WYD site tells us two things. One the text I provide was reliable and 2 the church is perfectly happy to have the text in the public domain. So on what basis do you laim the right to delete my entry? Lastly I might you arrogantly reedits my and everyone else's work but you make no effort to speak to me first. You seem to think you have a monopoly of wisdom about the catholic church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invocante (talk • contribs) 18:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What do others think? Lima (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Invocante's unsourced version really better than one that gives citations for its statements and provides the Greek text as requested above by another editor? Lima (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)