Talk:Magnificat (Dietrich Buxtehude)
I'm not sure what source the contributor used for his version, but I have noticed two minor deviations from the version edited by Rutter in his "European Sacred Music".
The first difference I spotted is in Soprano 1 & 2 in measure 25. Rutter divides the word "me-a" giving "me" the first four quarter notes, then ties the "a" to the last two quarter notes of that measure, plus the first half-note in the next measure. The second deviation I noticed was the first note in measure 68. Here, he has the Soprano 1 remain on an "E" rathern than move them down to a "D", as our CPDL contributor has.
These deviations aren't necessarily errors, but they are worth noting.
LadyIslay 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
There is only one ultimate source for this piece: a set of MS parts and a score in organ tablature copied by Gustav Düben and housed in the University Library of Uppsala, Sweden. In the parts, m. 25 underlays 'mea' the 'Rutter way' in the soprano 1 part and the 'Kickton way' in the soprano 2 part. I'd say it's editor's choice on that one. As for m. 68, the source has the Kickton version in the Soprano 1 part, and the Rutter version in the tablature score. Here, I'd say the tied e's version is more likely.
A more serious problem occurs at m. 80 where the MS shows a clear g# for sop 1 at the end of the measure, and gives g# as the third note of sop 2 in the tablature but not in the part. Other modern editors (Daniel Pinkham in the Peters edition, for example) have introduced even more g-naturals into this passage, prompted partly by an erroneous figure 6 over the b in the organo part in m. 79 (which I see has been excluded from the CPDL version).
The attribution to Buxtehude was made by musicologist Bruno Grusnick, probably because the MS was associated with other pieces by Buxtehude in the Düben Collection. Grusnick's 1930's edition for Bärenreiter became the basis for subsequent modern editions that perpetuated the Buxtehude attribution. Martin Geck challenged the attribution of this work and a number of other vocal works attributed to Buxtehude in a 1961 article in Die Musikforschung. Even Grusnick agreed that he'd got it wrong, but the Buxtehude name was too firmly attached by this point to shake loose (Pinkham's edition of 1971 makes no mention of doubtful attribution, for example).