User talk:DaveF

And very tangled it is too! --Pml 19:58:56, 2006-05-04 (PDT)

Archives

• Archive 1, 2006
• Archive 2, 2007
• Archive 3, 2008

Spuria

Dear David, Firstly, many thanks for your contributions to the world of Byrd and Tallis editions.

Secondly, have you ever considered the inclusion of works, particularly by Byrd, of doubtful authenticity? There are some forgotten gems in this sphere of misattributions and anomalies, particularly the Ave Regina a5 (formerly attributed to Taverner). However, I'm unaware of your stance/opinion on such matters and wouldn't want to question your judgements concerning these works. Although having said that, it may be useful for the general public to have access to editions of these works in order to make more informed decisions about authorship issues.

Also, might you accept a humble correction? This one is trivial, don't worry! In your edition of Tallis' Sermone blando there is a missing letter in the text of the Discantus part at the last note of bar 12. The text reads "Do - m - ni" at the moment, not "Do - mi -ni". I find myself doing this a lot when typing on Sibelius!

Many thanks, Edward Tambling Edward Tambling 12:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Further corrections/questions

Dear David,

Sorry to hassle you more than is needed, but I noticed when singing through Sermone blando with some colleagues that a number of other errors were present in the edition.

The first is a just textual misprint - Bassus bar 22 reads "Christo" not "Christum", at odds with the other parts.

The second concerns the provision of ficta above the last notes of the Discantus and Bassus parts in bar 11 - Ebs for both parts? Likewise, the same happens in bar 24 (between Contra Tenor and Bassus). The Bb in the Tenor part creates an uncomfortable tritone!

The third concerns bars 31 and 49. The third beat of each bar is presumably a Bb mjor chord, although in the Discantus part at bar 31 (which becomes the Contra Tenor part in bar 49) contains a C on the "cor-" of "corda". Should this be a D? Likewise, the two crotchets in bar 49 on "sur-re-" of "surrexisti" in the Contra Tenor part echo this previous incident. I've had my colleagues change this in their copies (as well as the textual errors and suggested ficta) - was this the right thing to do?

Many thanks, Edward Tambling Edward Tambling 17:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edward,

Thank you for your comments. To answer in reverse order:

• Yes, of course those Cs should be Ds - thank you. Corrected edition to be posted shortly (I shall proofread it all again first - this doesn't look like one of my more careful editions).
• No, the E naturals are naturals, despite what happens in the following bar. I hope I'm right in saying it's a fairly straightforward VII-I progression (with a bit of Tallisian spice added in the form of the suspension in the Discantus).
• Bah, yes, Christum - it's editorial text, so I can't even claim I was following the source. Domni likewise - a perfectly good word (genitive sing. of Domnus), but not what Tallis or Vautrollier intended.
• And I would love to have access to MS sources of Byrd's works, spurious/doubtful or not, but don't really have much opportunity for getting hold of these. I'm more-or-less restricted to facsimiles of the printed sources.

Thanks again for the corrections - they are very much appreciated. In the course of various revisions of my editions I have discovered some real howlers - these in works whose pages have been visited hundreds or thousands of times. It's painful to think of groups out there singing these horrors - perhaps (I hope) they just make the obvious corrections and don't tell me. So if you find anything else in any other of my editions, do let me know.

--DaveF 18:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear David,

Thanks for these clarifications - this really helps. I'll keep the E naturals/flats question in the back of my mind for Sermone blando - I don't agree that they should be sung as naturals, at least not yet!

Many thanks, Edward Tambling 14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward,

I notice that the Chapelle du Roi on their complete edition (volume 4) sing E flats. There are two MS sources listed, to which I don't have access: British Library Add.30480–4 and Tenbury 341–4, the latter in the Bodleian. I'm sure one or both will have the E flats - I can't imagine Alistair Dixon would just make them up - but in the absence of actual evidence I'll have to stick with my reading from the print of the Cantiones.

--DaveF 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Liturgical Calendar

This page has been marked for cleanup and potentially deletion. You were the only editor and you haven't edited the page for a few years so I was going to delete it but I thought I'd give you a heads up. Do you think we can do something useful with a list of saints' days and works suitable, etc? If not, it seems like the job has largely been done with Category:Sacred music by season --Bobnotts talk 10:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, zap it, by all means. I'd forgotten about it, but remember now abandoning it because it caused too many arguments (mainly with someone no longer active on this site, I hasten to add). I'm sure the category does the job just as well.--DaveF 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Byrd's O Salutaris Hostia (a6) - 21 V 1: Sharp?

Dear David,

Just a quick question about your edition of Byrd's superb "O salutaris hostia" (a6). I've noticed in the editions of both Warwick Edwards (for "The Byrd Edition" (Stainer and Bell, gen. ed. Philip Brett)) and David Skinner (for the Cardinall's Musick) that the inclusion of a G sharp on the second beat of bar 21 in the 5th part down (in this case, Bass I) is supported by no source evidence - neither Edwards nor Skinner includes this natural in their editions, and no mention is made by Edwards of textual variants between sources in this case.

This is a tricky one, not least since there is only one source for this voice part (London, British Library, Add. MS 31390 f. 17v) - the Baldwin partbooks (which sit in my college library [Christ Church, Oxford] only a few yards away!) lack this Tenor book [i.e. Bass I here], infuriatingly the only partbook missing.

How did you come by the sharp yourself? I'm all for its inclusion, not just because it creates perhaps the juiciest clash of the piece(!) but also because it completes the strictness of the canon that Byrd pursues so closely in the rest of the piece (in this case the Bass I part is the last part to imitate the Tenor II and Alto before it, both containing themselves the necessary natural). Moreover, the clash that this creates is no one-off dissonance!

I will be performing this piece with the Christ Church choir in just over a week's time, during the communion of a Eucharist (to be coupled with Byrd 4-part Mass) - the more heads turned the better!

Best wishes,

Edward Tambling 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)