Talk:Adoramus te, Christe (1538) (Anonymous): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Jason Smart (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:I assume you mean it should be semibreves rather than breves. I'm not sure how I missed that. Thanks. [[User:CCooze10|CCooze10]] ([[User talk:CCooze10|talk]]) 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC) | :I assume you mean it should be semibreves rather than breves. I'm not sure how I missed that. Thanks. [[User:CCooze10|CCooze10]] ([[User talk:CCooze10|talk]]) 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC) | ||
:Hi there. I'm English, so I was using English terminology. Apologies for not making that clear. What I meant was that the ligature of the original print, which you transcribed as two semibreves (= whole notes) should, in the transcription, actually be two minims (= half notes), as now corrected. All the best. :) [[User:Jason Smart|Jason Smart]] ([[User talk:Jason Smart|talk]]) 07:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:37, 16 February 2021
Editions #62926 and #62927: In the second voice, the two semibreves in the antepenultimate and penultimate bars should both be minims and the final note should consequently fall a bar earlier. Jason Smart (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you mean it should be semibreves rather than breves. I'm not sure how I missed that. Thanks. CCooze10 (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi there. I'm English, so I was using English terminology. Apologies for not making that clear. What I meant was that the ligature of the original print, which you transcribed as two semibreves (= whole notes) should, in the transcription, actually be two minims (= half notes), as now corrected. All the best. :) Jason Smart (talk) 07:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)