Saturday, November 8, 2014

Justorum animae - Stanford, C.V. - select performances

Using Spotify, I selected IMHO the best available performances of "Justorum animae" by Charles Villiers Stanford:   :)

These really are inspiring, don't you think?

Most transporting—so, shouldn't be ignored—are these gems:   :)
  • Choir of St John's, Elora
  • Choir of Truro Cathedral
  • District Eight Vocal Ensemble
  • Salt Lake Vocal Artists
  • University of Utah Singers

Copyright (c) 2014 Mark D. Blackwell.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Why I enjoy Evensong

I enjoy Evensong, because weekly for about a year I volunteered (in former days) as an Evensong singer.

This was at The Church of St. Michael and All Angels, directed by the excellent David Riley. That church (in Baltimore, MD) no longer does Evensong, though.

Apparently, they had an ironclad budget for only the music director's part in this (perhaps from a donation), although absolutely no congregation members ever attended (!) that I know of. So, the singers' experience was all fun, performing only for the aesthetic sense of the director.

We (music students) rehearsed a different musical Evensong setting every week during the hour before, and thereupon immediately went "on stage." We even had a countertenor.

Whoever might appear got to sing, so we did so completely for our own pleasure. Most of us attended consistently.

We covered quite a variety of Evensong settings and always (each time) enjoyed an after-party at a Chinese restaurant. :)

So, that's indeed why I enjoy Evensong.

Copyright (c) 2014 Mark D. Blackwell.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Violoncello piccolo & alto violin

A "violoncello piccolo" is a form of violoncello, akin to the cello da spalla (also called viola da spalla).

"A whiny beginning of the [Bach] 6th [cello] suite’s Praeludium (notably less securely played than what came before and after – where there were only a handful of squeaks and slips present) betrayed a few problems, not the least of which might have been the uncomfortably high register in which the suite lies for the cello, an instrument it was not written for. Most cellists use a smaller cello with an additional E string for the performance, which is akin to the baroque violoncello piccolo that these pieces were probably written for."


"Yo-Yo Ma, The New York Album...Release date: September 20, 1994...

"Béla Bartók (1861-1945) Concerto for Viola and Orchestra, Op. posthumous...

"Perhaps in Bartók's mind the draft of the Viola Concerto truly was complete. Nevertheless, the posthumous task of deciphering, arranging, filling out and orchestrating the thirteen extant pages of sketches proved to be [a] formidable one. At the [Bartók] family's request it was undertaken by Tibor Serly (1901-1978), the Hungarian-American composer and violist...

"Serly actually prepared a cello arrangement of the concerto simultaneously with the "original" viola version...Yo-Yo Ma originally intended to perform (and record) this cello version...but he was dissatisfied with the registral displacement and discovered that he could play the solo at its original pitch on the alto violin (or vertical viola), a large "viola" fitted with a long endpin and held like a cello. This instrument, part of a set of eight "violin analogues" designed and made by Carleen Hutchins at the suggestion of composer Henry Brant, is intended to carry the tonal characteristics, projection, and balance of the violin sound into the viola range."

— from the album's original liner notes—on p. 205 of


Copyright (c) 2014, 2015 Mark D. Blackwell.

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

Visual project design & reporting & Pivotal Tracker with add-ons


Some business owners wish to see diagrams which can explain the software structure of a project visually. In those cases, UML is a good choice:

The following (kinds of) UML diagram are useful for that purpose:


Often, business owners are attracted to the tool, Visual Paradigm. Unfortunately, it is quite expensive.

The tool itself isn't web-based, but the company (free of charge) offers VPository, cloud storage for developers working collaboratively.

IMO, a download for each user is fine in itself if the project data is shared.

Its Professional Edition is the minimum practical level to obtain the features which business owners often are interested in: Requirements Gathering ("uexceler"), Task Management, and Wireframes.

Regarding Visual Paradigm's cost factor, they levy a surcharge to receive bug fixes for their software. (Like all software, I suppose it's buggy.) Therefore, currently the Single Seat License for the Professional Edition is really $838.50 per person (= $699 + $139.50). Floating Licenses—for transient project contributors—are $1,090.00 each (= $908.50 + $181.50. All prices are in US dollars.).

Maybe using Visual Paradigm is really taking things too far.

Basecamp can maintain a project glossary as a versioned, editable file.

For most projects, the database schema diagram can be auto-generated (at least once) and stored in Basecamp.

Perhaps User Stories, and images for each wireframe block, can be tied together in some easy fashion (see "Add-ons adding pictures to User Stories", below).


I came across this list of tools similar to Visual Paradigm. Of them, the following might be useful:


Because Pivotal Tracker is quite successful (or popular), people have contributed quite a large number of add-ons:

Add-ons adding pictures to User Stories:

Add-ons adding User Stories from plain text:

Add-ons dumping User Stories:

Add-ons for bugs:

Add-ons for reporting:

Add-ons for testing:

Add-ons liaising other sites with Pivotal Tracker, also with Basecamp:

Add-ons liaising with Cucumber:

Add-ons liaising with GitHub:

Add-ons liaising with Redbooth:

Add-ons liaising with Redmine:

Other relevant add-ons:



Track Duck (highly popular) allows people to add comments to any website, after it automatically takes a screen shot.

Track Duck integrates with Pivotal Tracker and Basecamp, etc.

With it, one easily can add (one or multiple) images to Pivotal Tracker User Stories, and also create images for Basecamp. But see other "Add-ons adding pictures to User Stories", above.

Reviews of Track Duck:

Copyright (c) 2014 Mark D. Blackwell.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Rondo and ritornello, Must All Be Veiled

(From a letter to a friend:)

I think my use of the term, "ritornello" was incorrect, after you (as I recall) correctly described the form of my anthem, Must All Be Veiled as a "rondo."

As support, below are some descriptions of rondo and ritornello which you might enjoy reading from Theodore M. Finney's 1935 (rev. 1948) work, A History Of Music:

On p. 88-89, in a section entitled "Musical Forms" of a chapter entitled "The Beginnings of Secular Music" which covers the 1000s through the 1200s:

"[Troubadours, et al] made the first distinct beginnings of purely musical form...From the time of the Troubadours until the present, the words aubade (alba), serenade (serena), pastorale, canzone (canzonetta), carol, rondo, and ballad (ballata) are constantly to be met as titles of short compositions...[I]n at least one case, that of the rondo, the basic idea of an important musical form was present.

"The rondo as we now know it depends for its structure upon the reiteration, after digressions, of the beginning subject matter. Its ancestor is the Troubadour rondet de carol, a dance song in which, as its name implies, the dancing chorus sang a refrainlike strophic song between the repetitions of which solo verses were sung and danced. The formal principle of repetition after contrast, which here becomes evident for the first time, was destined, after later tonal discoveries had enlarged and better defined musical resources, to become all-important in musical structure."

I see the above structure, called rondo or rondet de carol, contains an identical repeating element.

On p. 118-119, in a section entitled "The Madrigal" of a chapter entitled "Ars Nova [New Technique]" which covers the years of the early through mid-late 1300s:

"Another important fourteenth-century form was the madrigale or mandriale. The madrigal was a secular composition which spread during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to the whole of Europe and became, with the motet, one of the two great choral forms. At the time of its first appearance in Italy it was an exceedingly simple structure consisting of two main portions. One part was composed for several stanzas of text and the other part, called the ritornello, using new music and a different rhythm, came immediately after each stanza. This form will be seen to be closely related structurally to the older Troubadour rondet de carol, mentioned in Chapter 8 [quoted above]. It may be diagrammed as follows:

"Stanza A, Ritornello B, Stanza A, Ritornello C, Stanza A, Ritornello D.

"The fourteenth-century Italian madrigal is important not only as the beginning of an important choral form, but as a connecting link between the older rondet de carol and the later rondo."

I see the above structure diagram of a Trecento madrigal includes multiple ritornellos, which differ (musically) each time.

On p. 364, in a section entitled "The Rondo" of a chapter entitled "Musical Form At The Death Of Bach: 1750":

"The rondo form, an A B A C A structure, was often combined with the characteristic rhythmic procedure of a dance..."

I see the above structure, called rondo, contains an identical repeating element.

Finally, Wikipedia on Ritornello says:

"A ritornello (Italian; 'little return') is a reinviting passage in Baroque music for orchestra or chorus. The first or final movement of a solo concerto, concerto grosso, or aria may be in 'ritornello form', in which the ritornello is the opening theme, always played tutti, which returns in whole or in part and in different keys throughout the movement. In these visits to different keys, ritornello form differs from the rondo.

"The final section of a fourteenth century madrigal had previously been called the ritornello and a similar technique had been employed by Giovanni Gabrieli in his 16th century motets. The instrumental interludes in early Baroque operas were also termed ritornelli.

"Ritornello construction faded with the advent of the new sonata form but received renewed interest in the 20th century."

I see this distinguishes a ritornello, which changes key, from a rondo, which does not.

My piece does not change key, so I think you are right to call it a rondo. :)

Also, in using a rondo form, I had intended to produce an antique feeling.

In this, my purpose was to express the ever-presence of a certain problem which George Herbert and I described. This problem, of miscommunication between expert speakers and ordinary listeners, has existed always.

As usual in creativity, my impulse to express this fact arose preconsciously—in other words, it felt right, somehow. :)

Ars_nova – Wikipedia
Madrigal_(Trecento) – Wikipedia
Ritornello – Wikipedia
Rondeau_(forme_fixe) – Wikipedia
Rondo – Wikipedia

Copyright (c) 2014 Mark D. Blackwell.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

GitHub should ease line-specific links to the latest commit while browsing master

While (naturally) browsing on branch 'master', GitHub currently requires three(!) clicks to generate any line-specific link for future (permanent) use. These clicks are: History, Browse code (at the top of the history list), and (again) clicking the desired line.

But (only) rarely do people follow these three (extra) steps.

You can blame people (posters) for not following these extra steps, but (as a matter of human nature, IMHO) we can't expect most people actually to follow them, because currently (as they observe it) their gathered links are correct. They merely become obsolete over time.

In practice, this screws up blog and StackOverflow posts, etc. which contain links to specific locations inside source code (on GitHub). For most of these links, their reasonable use is to point to source code (sometimes source lines) visible in the latest commit. Yet these posters (almost always) gather links which actually point to an evolving branch (usually 'master'). As source code evolves, these links quickly become obsolete.

This obsolescence is especially bad with line-specific links, but also happens for file-specific ones.

Here let me say that GitHub's wonderfully good UI is GitHub's greatest and best feature! :)

But the clumsiness of this detail of GitHub's UI (here) is at fault IMHO for this problem. :(

I tried to enlist StackExchange's help to argue this case with GitHub, but to no avail. Also, I asked GitHub directly. We shall see.

This screwup (of obsolete links in people's posts) is apparent, bothersome, and quite frequent!

As a solution, GitHub should consider implementing the following UI improvement:

Make generating such permanent, line-specific links (in browsers' address bars) much easier for their users by adding a button (to all source-display web pages on branches). This button (with a single click) would:
  • Switch from viewing the source code (including a line reference) on a branch, to viewing that source code (including the same line reference) in a blob. To be helpful, that blob must be the latest commit of that branch.

GitHub already distinguishes branch heads from blobs. This is apparent in GitHub's sometime use of the word 'blob' as an URL path segment name (versus the words 'commits/master').

Therefore, GitHub seems easily able to find the latest commit SHA1 for a given branch and do what is desired here: that is, redirect the browser to the corresponding line in the latest commit.

UPDATE: Just four(!) hours later, this nice reply came back from a GitHub staffperson:

"Great idea, thanks! There is a shortcut key "y" that you can hit on any code page to change the URL to the permanent link. But you're right that people may not always choose to do that.

"I've added your idea to our internal Feature Request List. We can't say if/when we may add a feature, however your feedback has definitely been recorded."

Although GitHub's pages don't present this feature in an obvious way, GitHub's Help here further describes their 'Y' shortcut key's hidden access (to it) that she's talking about.

UPDATE: StackExchange support replied with:

I'm not entirely certain what you were trying to accomplish with that post. First, it was on, where users go to talk about Stack Overflow itself. We discuss features, community governance, file bugs and similar activities on meta.

However, your post would not have been on topic for Stack Overflow either, it's a complaint about how Github works, as far as I can tell, not a question. We're not a typical forum, we're a Q&A site. To get a better idea of how our engine works, take a brief tour of the features.

Sorry that you had a bad experience, but there's not much we can do about it at this point. If you've got a succinct programming question where the problem can be demonstrated with a short code snippet, you're more than welcome to ask on Stack Overflow. If you have a question about Stack Overflow itself, how it works, or an idea to improve it - then feel free to post on meta.

Stack Exchange Team

I replied to StackExchange support with:

Hi, Team,
> it was on, where users go to talk about Stack Overflow[.]
> about Stack Overflow itself, how it works, or an idea to improve it -
> then feel free to post on meta.
> it's a complaint about how Github works, as far as I can tell, not a question.

Yes, this is about StackExchange.

If you think about it, permanent links, including those to, comprise part of the business value of the StackExchange family of sites.

Your reply doesn't answer my suggestion that it's in the interest of StackExchange, the company, to try to encourage GitHub, the company, to improve their GUI, so that permanent links are easier (and less error-prone) to make.

I'm sure there are ways the staff of StackExchange can convey this interest (of the StackExchange company) to the staff of GitHub.

I cast about for how I can communicate this (I believe helpful) idea to the staff of StackExchange, and the two methods I tried (which you already know about) came to mind. Yes, I have contacted GitHub about this, but I am suggesting that StackExchange do this for itself, as well.

Who else can I contact, besides the StackExchange support team? Do tell!

> Sorry that you had a bad experience

To me, that has little importance. Much more important is the business suggestion for StackExchange, and (as you know) to improve the world, if I can.

From a reply from GitHub, I learned that hitting the 'Y' key switches their webpages to permanent links, easily.

For StackExchange, the problem is that accessing this GitHub switching functionality by hitting 'Y' is not widely known. So, in questions and answers on StackExchange, many people (perhaps) are sharing transient GitHub links.

GitHub may be reluctant to use a half-square inch of real estate on their webpages to make this functionality visible, since that visibility wouldn't help them directly.

But as good neighbors (or something like that) GitHub may be willing to "do the right thing," especially if StackExchange and Wikipedia, et al, ask them to. That's what I think.

Who knows whether GitHub might actually respond? Why doesn't StackExchange try? (i.e., for the purpose of aiding StackExchange's own business interest).

With warm regards,
Mark D. Blackwell

Copyright (c) 2014 Mark D. Blackwell.