Talk:Inviolata, integra et casta (Josquin des Prez): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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) | ||
* In bar 51, Cantus, the semibreve should be E rather than F | |||
* In bar 60, Cantus, the E should be D | |||
[[User:Imruska|Imruska]] ([[User talk:Imruska|talk]]) 2020-03-30 |
Latest revision as of 21:29, 7 April 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 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.
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)
- In bar 51, Cantus, the semibreve should be E rather than F
- In bar 60, Cantus, the E should be D