Talk:A solis ortus cardine a 4 (Gilles Binchois): Difference between revisions
(→Text placement: new section) |
m (→Text placement) |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
== Text placement == | == Text placement == | ||
The edition by Erik Kaashoek makes the claim that the underlay is improved and "leading for the text placement has been the Gregorian version and the structure of the music." While this is a noble gesture, the underlay in my edition follows the Gregorian chant syllabic patterns and Binchois' own stylistic examples which we have. However, as with all works of this period, the underlay was fairly loose and often not discernable as originally notated, with judgement deferring to the singers for the most part as to what was "natural" under the normal practice of the region. Note, however, that early 15th century settings often have the text notated in only one voice leaving the rest to follow the pattern. Also the extended melismas and occasional odd feel of placement to our modern ears was the norm, with various voices being played on instruments as often as sung. The Latin language accents were known and attention to this as second only to direct quotes from the chant was the commonplace practice. | The edition by Erik Kaashoek makes the claim that the underlay is improved and "leading for the text placement has been the Gregorian version and the structure of the music." While this is a noble gesture, the underlay in my edition follows the Gregorian chant syllabic patterns and Binchois' own stylistic examples which we have. However, as with all works of this period, the underlay was fairly loose and often not discernable as originally notated, with judgement deferring to the singers for the most part as to what was "natural" under the normal practice of the region. Note, however, that early 15th century settings often have the text notated in only one voice leaving the rest to follow the pattern. Also the extended melismas and occasional odd feel of placement to our modern ears was the norm, with various voices being played on instruments as often as sung. The Latin language accents were known and attention to this as second only to direct quotes from the chant was the commonplace practice. Also, note that the revision edition is a third lower than mine. |
Latest revision as of 19:22, 18 May 2021
To Hymn or not to Hymn?
I'm not so sure I agree with reclassifying this to motet. perhaps adding to classification so it could be grouped with motets and hymns depending on the search. The text is a poem, all editions on CPDL are classified as a hymn and hymns were quite specifically defined in the Liber Usualis, distinctly different from graduals, responsories etc. The category which defines them is the text and liturgical application, not the type of setting. i have returned the page to its former version. Marchesa 08:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
|
|
|
I've been trying to get a discussion started on the forums and some talk pages about these cats, as yet to no avail, so I'm happy to see a start here. We classify (some) scores according to their liturgical season, although no-one would argue that any concert program based on other criteria might use pieces randomly without taking that particular characteristic into account. I think the same reasoning should apply to liturgical use: regardless of how and when you sing it, there is still an 'official' qualification as to its role in liturgy. A gradual is not an introit or a hymn, and vice versa. The Liber is a valid source of information in this respect. The mere fact that a piece is shortened does not alter its function. The problem with 'motet' is of course that basically, any polyphonic work in Latin would answer to this definition. Since its related search terms (renaissance and Latin) are still valid characteristics, but do not by far cover the ins and outs of a particular text, I would favour labelling pieces under multiple categories. joachim 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
|
I've opened a topic on these issues at the forums. – Chucktalk Giffen♫ 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Text placement
The edition by Erik Kaashoek makes the claim that the underlay is improved and "leading for the text placement has been the Gregorian version and the structure of the music." While this is a noble gesture, the underlay in my edition follows the Gregorian chant syllabic patterns and Binchois' own stylistic examples which we have. However, as with all works of this period, the underlay was fairly loose and often not discernable as originally notated, with judgement deferring to the singers for the most part as to what was "natural" under the normal practice of the region. Note, however, that early 15th century settings often have the text notated in only one voice leaving the rest to follow the pattern. Also the extended melismas and occasional odd feel of placement to our modern ears was the norm, with various voices being played on instruments as often as sung. The Latin language accents were known and attention to this as second only to direct quotes from the chant was the commonplace practice. Also, note that the revision edition is a third lower than mine.