50 issues of Cecilia
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    In my inbox today I have a zipfile with 50 issues of Cecilia, thanks to a wonderfully generous archive donor. Actually, as I think about it, let me just post that here so you can get them all. It's the easy way, and I don't know why I haven't thought about that until now

    www.pdfdocument.com/CMAA/50_052909.ZIP

    anyway, obviously we need these on the site but it is important to have good prep work: 1) bookmarks, 2) fastview set, 3) good search properties and fields, 4) uploaded with a hard link on the site with brief content descriptions.

    Everyone is suffering right now from extreme time issues, but if you think you can help in this way, please post here.
    Thanked by 1Kathy
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    wow, thnx JT.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    This is absolutely ASTOUNDING

    there is SO MUCH interesting stuff in these!

    (faints)

    for instance, look at Caecilia 1934 09 ad see Leo Manzetti ATTACK Dr. Carl Rossini
  • Donna Robillard
    Posts: 33
    Thanks, Jeffrey. This is a treasure!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Please let me know if you can help. the prep work requires a full version of some PDF program, and it doesn't have to be Adobe.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    i'm thinking that I might have time today to do lots of these, since I'll be traveling and sitting in spots here and there as we all do when traveling. so I'll do as many as I can and then upload them on Sunday, and we can go from there.
  • VickiW
    Posts: 36
    Jeffrey, or anyone else, is there a program cheaper than Adobe that would do the job? I would love to be able to help out with these kinds of editing projects, but cannot afford the full Adobe just now.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    That's the problem: the cheapest version of Adobe I know is $299
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    oh PDF Creator or PDF Document Thingy or something like that. It costs $100 or $70 or something like that. Adobe isn't so hot anyway.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    I've been devouring these Caecilia (whenever I have a free second).

    I am struck, above all, by some of the articles, because they sound so similar to those today -- some could have even been written today!

    Truly, our fight for appropriate Church music did not start in 1965 !!!

    But now we have technology to help us!

    ...and the Grace of God, on which all depends.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Jeff,

    I am amazed at the similarity, and came on to post about that.

    Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

    Can we take time, evaluate what history shows us and come up with a different approach?
  • rogue63
    Posts: 410
    Jeff O, I was struck by the same thing; these articles have nearly the same tone--encouraging and supportive while upholding high musical standards--as any number of contemporary issues of Sacred Music or many discussions here on the forum. It is refreshing and heartening to know that these battles were happening well before 2009, and the very thought of similar struggles in the past gives me some hope for the future.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    it is interesting to reflect on the differences between then and now. I do believe that there is a major structural difference and I think it is decisive. Theirs was top down and well funded. Ours is bottom up and unfunded. I think the latter is more viable.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I think these should work

    The Cecilia

    The Caecilia, June 1933
    The Caecilia, August 1933
    The Caecilia, September 1933
    The Caecilia, October 1933
    The Caecilia, November 1933
    The Caecilia, December 1933
    The Caecilia, January 1934
    The Caecilia, February 1934
    The Caecilia, March 1934
    The Caecilia, April 1934
    The Caecilia, May 1934
    The Caecilia, June 1934
    The Caecilia, August 1934
    The Caecilia, September 1934
    The Caecilia, October 1934
    The Caecilia, November 1934
    The Caecilia, December 1934
    The Caecilia, January 1935
    The Caecilia, February 1935
    The Caecilia, March 1935
    The Caecilia, April 1935
    The Caecilia, May 1935
    The Caecilia, June 1936
    The Caecilia, August 1936
    The Caecilia, September 1936
    The Caecilia, October 1936
    The Caecilia, November 1936
    The Caecilia, December 1936
    The Caecilia, January 1936
    The Caecilia, February 1936
    The Caecilia, March 1936
    The Caecilia, April 1936
    The Caecilia, May 1936
    The Caecilia, June 1936
    The Caecilia, August 1936
    The Caecilia, September 1936
    The Caecilia, October 1936
    The Caecilia, November 1936
    The Caecilia, December 1936
    The Caecilia, January 1937
    The Caecilia, February 1937
    The Caecilia, March 1937
    The Caecilia, April 1937
    The Caecilia, May 1937
    The Caecilia, June 1937
    The Caecilia, August 1937
    The Caecilia, September 1937
    The Caecilia, October 1937
    The Caecilia, November 1937
    The Caecilia, Decemeber 1937
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Can you test for errors?

    Obviously, we need bookmarks and descriptions of contents of each
  • rogue63
    Posts: 410
    Jeffrey Tucker: "Theirs was top down and well funded. Ours is bottom up and unfunded. I think the latter is more viable."
    Why more viable now than then? From that description alone it sounds impossible. Please explain.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Jeffrey,

    Although I see many similarities, I also see major differences. I guess I was surprised to see so many similairities----I wasn't expecting to see any --- I had not seen the 1930's, only the 1950's --- I can see that during the 1930's, Cecilia took an anti-Solesmes attitude, mixed with people like Hugle who were pro-Solesmes. Again, GREAT reading --- wish I weren't so tired !

    I am amazed at the wonderful typesetting they had during the Great Depression.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    @rogue63, the movement back then was extensive and growing but mainly because of two forces: centralized dictate and centralized funding. It became like central planning in time: it looks impressive from the outside but the roots were weakening underneath. The winds came and it all-but disappeared in a few years. This indicates a serious problem. And there were serious problems. When all the work is done by and funding by a few people at the top of a production pyramid, the lower orders develop a sense of dependency and lack intellectual and material resources to maintain during a crisis.

    Ours is completely different in this respect. The energy is from below, the talent is diffuse, the passion is wide spread and deep, and there is no one organizing anything from a central location, much less funding it. So the roots are deeper; the foundation is more solid. And the movement today is not the slightest bit naive: we all live in the real world and faces relentless challenges, which have steeled us all. Nor is there a danger of money being cut off or a danger of being controlled by a funding source. It doesn't exist. We've all learned to get by as best we can. This necessity has been the mother of great innovation, and it has prepared us for a long struggle ahead. We all know very well that the only source of our growth is hard work and passion and evangelism. We are not waiting for a sugar daddy to save us or for some pronouncement from on high that makes everyone do what we wish. Instead we are taking the initiative ourselves at all levels and seeking to inspire by the force of truth and beauty.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    Jeffrey, and one other thing: technology. At a bare minimum, how many people on this forum would even be aware of the existence of the CMAA if it wasn't for the Internet? I certainly wouldn't. Then add the difficulty of obtaining music before copying machines, much less computers and printers.
  • rogue63
    Posts: 410
    Well, I wish I could write as eloquently as Mr. Tucker. Thank you very much for such a clear explanation! Ladies and gentlemen, take that second paragraph and put it on your fridge, on the computer, on the organ, on the choir chairs. He has summed it up perfectly: "...seeking to inspire by force of truth and beauty." Amen, amen.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Hey, look at this: special archive page

    image
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Really nice!

    May I ask: was anyone else astounded at the quality of the typesetting?

    I can't get enough of these magazines, especially the page where they say "pay 10 cents and we'll put your name up here as one of the premiere church musicians in America!"
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I hope to get more. Gregorian REview on its way
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    JO:

    Not bad for hot metal. But I much prefer InDesign.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Is there any hope for a mere mortal to learn InDesign?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    JT:

    What is it you want to accomplish... perhaps I can answer any questions.
  • marymezzomarymezzo
    Posts: 236
    One of my designer friends tells me InDesign is very intuitive and that I'll catch on in no time. We've been using Quark for donkey's years but want to make the transition to InDesign this fall.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    mary:

    Yea. Quark was the only (4 color prepress) software since version 1.0 which I started using when I got my Mac in 1988 all the way up until 2000 or so when ID came in. Then it was bye bye Quirk!
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Mary Mezzo, as a staunch user of InDesign and because I am sitting within 40' of 12 miniature donkey ears, all attached to living and breathing donkeys, I can say without a doubt that it is not intuitive and that I'm not sure why we are talking about donkeys...whose braying scares people. But I use InDesign every day since it replaced PageMaker.
  • marymezzomarymezzo
    Posts: 236
    Francis, I can't tell you how I hate and despise Quark. When I first started with Macs (also 1988!), I used Pagemaker, then switched to Quark . . . and suffered with incredible bugginess and horrible customer service etc. etc. The program seems to have an evil knack for crashing and burning just as I approach my twice-a-month diocesan-newspaper deadline. Grrrrr.

    InDesign will be a pleasure (I hope) in comparison. I've got CS4, just haven't made the transition.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    For those who do not have a clue what we are talking about....these are programs that you use to create programs, newspapers, whatever....and they permit you to take text from documents and images and lay them out on a page and make them look good. PageMaker was an Adobe product, then they also created InDesign and then phased out PageMaker, sending us all to InDesign, which is a more powerful program. As such it is more complicated and harder to use. CS4 stands for Creative Suite 4, as Adobe has a number of programs along with InDesign that can work together.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    mary:

    Jump without fear! ID is a wonderful tool.

    You can do basic layout, wraparounds, kerning, par and doc styles, color management, (spot and photo) graphic management with a minimal number of the tools for a newspaper. It has great preflight and digital color proofing too. I was once the production director for the Catholic Review (Baltimore's largest weekly) and brought them electronic (digital) in the nineties with Quark. Newspapers should be a breeze with ID (except, of course, for the display ads which can be a nightmare when you are dealing with agencies). But these days PDF is so solid, you can have all agencies send you a press ready PDF for spot placement.

    Are you doing a broadsheet or a tabloid?

    If you have any questions feel free to contact me offline. (www.franciskoerber.com) You can pick up my email from that site.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    I notice that a few more-recent volumes are listed on the Caecilia Archives webpage.

    There might be some errors needing correction, and problems needing repair.

    1958_2_caecilia.pdf
    this file contains "Volume 85 No 1 February 1958"
    so I think the file should be renamed.

    1958_3_caecilia.pdf
    cannot be opened (bad file type or damaged content).

    1958_4_caecilia.pdf
    this file contains "Volume 85 No 4 Fall 1958"
    so it seems that the Caecilia transitioned from monthly to quarterly in 1958.
    Anyone have official volume data about this?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    This monthly/quarterly problem is huge. Driving me nuts, and this accounts for why the last ones are sort of messed up. I have another 12 issues up there too that have not been linked. Help!
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 496
    Caecilia went from monthly to quarterly with the 1957 volume, but continued to use months to date the issues (February, May, August, December, 1957). I believe this coincided with the change in editorship with Rev. Francis Schmitt succeeding Dom Ermin Vitry.

    In the 1958 volume, the dating scheme changed to February, Spring, Summer, Fall, 1958.

    In 1959, it shifted again: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter, 1959. As far as I know, the 1959 dating pattern continued through at least 1961.

    Jeffery - Is this a technical problem, or more a matter of figuring out how to label the links?
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Arthur, thanks for the clear summary.

    I find this sort of info helpful in indicating whether there will be
    a little or a lot of material to peruse in the future,
    depending on CMAA members locating missing periodicals
    and sacrificing them to the scanning system for the benefit of all.

    Were there reasons or explanations given anywhere inside
    in 1956 or 1957 for the switch from 10-to-12 down to 4?
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 496
    I don't have the February (1st quarter) 1957 issue, but in the December 1957 issue they publish a letter from someone saying they like the new quarterly format. Also there are several letters saying they like the new editorial direction (which, I gather, means a more critical stance vis-à-vis Solesmes).

    In the Winter (4th Quarter) 1959 issue, there is this editorial notice:

    Great Thanks
    Caecilia is grateful to those persons who have given money (and time), and to the advertisers who have answered our distress signal of last fall. A full accounting will be given in a later issue.

    I don't have the "later issue". But it would appear that Caecilia was trending downward in this period from 1957-1959. Their page count in 1957 averages over 100 per issue. The 1st issue in 1958 peaks at over 150 pages. But then the issues get progressively thinner and are down to about 50 pages per issue in Winter 1960 and Spring 1961.

    Hopefully the 1962-1964 volumes will be available soon and we'll have a better idea of the rest of the story.

    In regard to scanning - Caecilia is staple-bound in these years. I just scanned them on a flat-bed scanner, so there was no damage. Even 1000 pages didn't actually take that long. If they have to be run through a scanner with a feeder, the easiest thing would be to simply remove the staples and scan 2 pages at once. Then use Adobe to crop and reassemble the pages. Rebinding the scanned issues can be done with a saddle-stitch stapler - with modern staples should last a century!
  • JenniferGM
    Posts: 59
    I know this is a very old thread, but I have been enjoying the archives of Caecilia so much! Thank you for this gift.

    But alas, I was trying to find specific issues referenced in the book "The Unread Vision" and most of his references are the years not in the archives! I do hope someday the late 1930s and the 1940s can be shared.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
Add a Comment