Talk:Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis

Orchestration
The orchestra is not really divided in three parts. The "string quartet" consists of the leaders of "orchestra 1" and thus are not spatially separated from it. The score asks for spatial separation of "orchestra 1" and "orchestra 2" if possible. 80.221.10.91 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

By or Of?
Is the title of the entry wrong? The cover of the music says "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis", but the MP3 has the same name as the entry.Rhonabwy (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the whole Internet cannot decide if it is "by" or "of". Musicbrainz has it listed four different ways. --Mxcl (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm fairly confident it is "Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis" as the page Thomas Tallis says that Ralph (the composer) was inspired to write this piece by "Third Mode Melody" by Thomas Tallis. --Mxcl (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I edited it to "of" but looking at the history this has been contentious. The best edit claimed it was based on viewing the score. I'll leave it as I changed it until someone with more knowledge can come along and fix it properly. Also worth noting, there is ~42,000 for "by" and only 8,000 for "of" Mxcl (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the biography by RVW's wife Ursula talks consequently of "by", as does RVW's official musical biographer Michael Kennedy in his Works of... (1964). I am one of the authors of the Dutch article of the Tallis Fantasia, and I decided to change the title from "of" to "by". 212.45.52.229 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) (Fingerspitzengefühl on Dutch Wiki)
 * Wow, impressive. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminiscent of a church?
Hi guys... the page states that it's difficult to listen to the piece not thinking of the acoustics in a church. That's just not true. I'm listening to the piece at the moment and I can definitely see how this sounds like an organ now, but before visiting this page, I didn't think of a church at all. That's just someone's random opinion. 84.157.246.80 (talk) 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That part had no citation of a source so I removed it. I think of the countryside when I hear the piece, and I'd lay money on most other listeners - particularly British listeners - doing the same. Anyway, it's gone and should stay gone until it's supported with a source Ceadge (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Fight or Sight?
The Theatre of Voices under Pual Hillier sings the first line as "Why fumeth in sight." Could the long "s" be the problem? (Could it have been misread as an "f" -- or could Hillier have misread a genuine "f" as a long "s"?) I suppose either reading is possible, though it seems to me that "fight" is more likely. (The text is a version of Psalm 2, "Why do the heathen rage.") Kostaki mou (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the original, in Matthew Parker's Whole Psalter of 1567. It's a long ſ, all right. That doesn't rule out a printer's error. But, from the same book, here's Tallis's four-part setting of the words. It's spelled "ſight" in two of the parts and "ſyght" in the other two parts. So, I think "sight" is right. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Though "Pual" probably is not ;-)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps more helpfully: Parker's use of the word "sight" here is probably in the now-obsolete sense of "a sigh" (OED, "sight, n.2"), rather than in the visual sense. The OED offers (in addition to two earlier examples) two quotations from 1584:
 * T. Lodge The Delectable Historie of Forbonius & Prisceria 30: "Not waying of her many louing sightes, Her watrie eyes, her secret moane by nights."
 * Pleas. Com. Two Ital. Gentl. D j: " By the smoake of loouers scalding sightes" [rhyme flightes].
 * "Why fumeth in sight" = "Why do [they] fume in sighs" seems a reasonable interpretation of the Latin incipit Parker quotes in the margin: Quare fremuerunt.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

New Edition (2010)
On its website, Faber & Faber state: "On the cusp of the hundredth anniversary of its premiere at the Gloucester Three Choirs Festival, Faber Music is proud to publish a much-needed new edition of Vaughan Williams’ Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis. The new edition corrects the original engraver’s mis-interpretations of many of Vaughan Williams’ intentions and other mistakes in the Curwen Edition, to give a clearer score, which combined with a new set of parts with new rehearsal numbers, will give greater clarity and understanding to the work’s many followers."

Shouldn't the article refer to this and clarify what exactly these "mis-interpretations" and "mistakes" consist of? Philipson55 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

great article
great article! thanks for this great info. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Elgar
Did Elgar comment on the piece, after the premiere? If so, is there a quote worthy of inclusion? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 21 December 2023 (UTC)