Talk:Jacopo da Bologna

message: "However, the identification of Jacopo in the latter source was made by a hand later than the copyist's".
What exactly is the meaning of this sentence?  Antoniouwik (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what part of this sentence is supposed to be unclear. Perhaps breaking it up into a series of shorter statements would help. (1) A music manuscript was copied by a scribe. (2) One piece in this manuscript is attributed to Jacopo. (3) The attribution was added to the manuscript long after it had originally been copied. (4) The evidence for this includes (but is not necessarily limited to) an analysis of the handwriting, which shows the attribution to have been written by a different person than the original copyist. Does this help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Aha! Now that you point it out, I see exactly what you mean. It can and shall be improved.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's not in a musical manuscript, but it's a musical decoration at the bottom of a page showing three musicians playing.  The musicians are labeled by name, and one of them is identified as Jacopo.  However, Fischer is not sure that the hand that added the name is the same as the person who copied the miniature, so we cannot be sure that the image is an accurate depiction of Jacopo da Bologna.  (That much is in the article.  I can't remember whether he discusses the question of whether we should believe that the Squarcialupi portrait is a more accurate image of Jacopo, having been made about 40-50 years after his death).  -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (p.s. -- of the two citation needed's -- I'd remove the first statement: it's not really true; the second is all throughout the literature [whether actually true or not, who knows, but it's everywhere] I can't think of a citation for off the top of my head other than my diss, p. 192, but that should be enough.  I know that it's in Nadas's diss also) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference, which I have now added. I have also removed the contrary-to-fact claim. You really are permitted to edit the article yourself, you know, even if you are adding a reference to a source you wrote yourself.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I know.  It's just that there are so many self-promoters and POV pushers on WP (a greater % by the day, it seems) that I feel like I'm contributing to it even if I've published in reliable sources (and there's some debate about whether disses count, though I'm pretty sure that there are enough citations of mine by now to back it up as an RS). Plus I have enough stuff published by now that I know people would find controversial (this one though is so uncontroversial that I didn't provide a cite of it in my diss, which is why I don't have a better paper trail for it) that I don't believe for a moment that my work represents the state of thinking in the field.  Thanks for making the changes though!  Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Stop with the shrinking-violet stuff already! If your diss were from the Metropolitan Online Junior College of Hairdressing, you might have some cause to be self-deprecating, but your granting institution is, I think, still regarded as credible (if only just barely). You are if anything in danger of being a POV puller!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the meaning of a sentence 

message: * Madrigal, Lauda, and Local Style in Trecento Florence
* Rhapsodic Elements in North-Italian Polyphony of the 14th Century
* THE MADRIGAL AQUIL'ALTERA BY JACOPO DA BOLOGNA AND INTERTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIPS IN THE MUSICAL REPERTORY OF THE ITALIAN TRECENTO
* 
Aza24 (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  To use