Talk:Videte miraculum (Thomas Tallis)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Comparison of this edition with a published edition (pub. Mapa Mundi) shows a number of differences:
- Incipit should be in the B1 part (to correspond with the cantus firmus).
- The irregular barring used in this edition gives little, if any, benefit over 4/2 time throughout most of the piece.
- Many differences in word underlay and in ficta. These are generally a matter of personal preference, but performers might be well advised to consult the published score, which suggests (among many other things):
- T1, bar 24 - repetition of "onerata"
- A & T1, bars 35 & 36 - repetition of "cognoscit" (to coincide with S)
- Some notational differences:
- S, bar 23 enters on the last crotchet and is held for 2 crotchets
- T1, bar 37 - F# on "-scit" should be A
- A, bar 39, 4th quaver E should possibly be D
--Adrianwall 22:00, 14 March 2008 (PDT)
As the editor in question, I'd like to reply to Adrianwall's commentary.
- Incipit can be sung by any part and should probably have been written on a separate staff above the edition.
- Barring is a completely modern imposition on the music, so the choice of barring is editorial, and therefore a matter of opinion. The piece has been published in double barring 8/2 - 6/2. The sources are marked slashed-C (like modern cut time signature).
- The underlay in the Mapa Mundi edition are in fact, changes they made to the 19th century edition published in England and the 18th century edition.
- I'm confused by the S. question in m23. S is singing though the entire measure, not entering. T1, m37, the F# is in agreement with 3 other sources. The leading tone F# to G is more likely than A. m39, A: 4th quaver questioning E is a good question (due to clash with D in T1). The pattern is suggested by T1, m36 and B2, m31.
Some of the irregularities of this piece come the from peculiarity of the Sarum rite chants. -- Paul Marchesano Marchesa 18:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)