Talk:Crux fidelis (John IV of Portugal)
CPDL #2254
Bar 4-5 Tied G sharp in Alto on "-ter" should be G natural
Bar 26 Soprano 3rd note. de Marco edition has G natural, instead of B, though it does not affect the harmony at all.
Jamesgibb 05:31, 12 March 2011 (CST)
All editions
All three version lack the Amen.
- CPDL #2254
- In the Marco edition: bars 1-2 Tenor tie missing; bar 5 Tenor 'om-' should be one note earlier; bars 7-8 Alto tie missing; bar 14 Alto 2nd note should be D natural; bar 16 Tenor the quaver should be a D; bar 17 Alto & Tenor 'mi-' shouldn't come until the 2nd beat; bar 21-2 Tenor the E should be tied across the barline with 'cla-' on the F#.
- CPDL #23255
- In the Gibb edition: bar 8 Sop. 2nd note should be F. The editor missed the semibreve in bar 3, writing a minim instead and missing the crotchet rest and the barring is therefore a travesty thereafter. The final nota cambiata suspension in the tenor is missing.
The original key is G. For a decent edition, see Rutter's published by OUP in 'Ash Wednesday to Easter for Choirs'. Get it right chaps! RMD 08:44, 19 March 2011 (CDT)
RMD's comments
Oh dear! Where to start? Firstly, the amen. Since the three versions he has commented on are from widely separated regions, it is likely that they have been produced from three different source documents. Given that three don't have an amen and only the Rutter version does, it would be more accurate to say that three don't have AN amen, rather than THE amen. Perhaps a more important reason for there being no amen is that it would make no liturgical sense. It is not a prayer or a creed, but a statement about the cross. Saying "so let it be" at the end would be strange, I think.
RMD clearly regards the Rutter version as THE version. However, there is no indication of the source, or of what editorial changes Rutter might have made, apart from the indication that the dynamics are his. (He has of course added an English text,but that merely proves that his musical competence does not extend to the sphere of poetry.) No, the Rutter version is just that, another version. Comments which imply that differences are in fact errors is just silly. Jamesgibb 12:04, 23 March 2011 (CDT)