Difference between revisions of "Talk:Inviolata, integra et casta (Josquin des Prez)"

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 11: Line 11:
 
The underlay in several parts looks odd in several of the parts, missing in some places and some odd word placings.<br>
 
The underlay in several parts looks odd in several of the parts, missing in some places and some odd word placings.<br>
 
[[User:Jamesgibb|Jamesgibb]] ([[User talk:Jamesgibb|talk]]) 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 
[[User:Jamesgibb|Jamesgibb]] ([[User talk:Jamesgibb|talk]]) 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
;29733
 +
* In bar 51, Cantus, the semibreve should be E rather than F.
 +
[[User:Imruska|Imruska]] ([[User talk:Imruska|talk]]) 2020-03-30

Revision as of 15:43, 30 March 2020

7927

Possible score errors:

  • In the title, the second word should be 'integra', not 'intagra'.
  • In bar 9, Cantus, the descending scale should be maintained, so the G should be an E: this is a melodic line that is repeated a number of times.
  • In bar 40, Tenor 1, an editorial B natural is desirable, to avoid the tritone.
  • In bar 51, Cantus, the semibreve should be E rather than F
  • In bar 102, Tenor 1, the second note should be G rather than F (other sources confirm this).
  • In bar 136, Tenor 1's first note again requires an editorial natural, I think.

Mick Swithinbank

The underlay in several parts looks odd in several of the parts, missing in some places and some odd word placings.
Jamesgibb (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

29733
  • In bar 51, Cantus, the semibreve should be E rather than F.

Imruska (talk) 2020-03-30