Re: Humble question, text at the second note in a ligature

[David Kastrup]

"Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "Son_V" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 4:42 PM
> Subject: Re: Humble question, text at the second note in a ligature
>
>
>> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
>>> To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
>>> Cc: "Son_V" <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 4:17 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Humble question, text at the second note in a ligature
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, that makes no sense at all.  You can't sing two syllables to a
>>>>>>> single note.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, when singing Monteverdi's Vespers, I remember having to
>>>>>> fit about
>>>>>> a dozen of syllables to some single notes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take a look at
>>>>>> <URL:http://imslp.org/wiki/Special:ImagefromIndex/311853>, page
>>>>>> 10. Or
>>>>>> probably more convincingly interspersed with "normal" syllable
>>>>>> distributions several times on page 11.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't personally see examples of two syllables per note there: there
>>>>> are a few where the words could be hyphenated better, that's all I can
>>>>> see.
>>>>
>>>> Page 11.  There is a single note for all of "Donec ponem inimicos".
>>>> Similarly "Tecum principium in die virtutis".  Again with "in
>>>> splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum".
>>>
>>> I would assume that's simply chant.
>>
>> As opposed to page 10, it is interspersed with syllable-timed music, and
>> it needs to obey the total note value in order to keep in synch with
>> instruments.  Also it's not a single singer but multiple voices.  So
>> it's rather chanty than chant.
>>
>>> Furthermore, note that, simply because a printer does something in
>>> 1610 doesn't make it correct notation in 2014.
>>
>> We did sing from modern transcriptions using the same style of notation.
>
> I'm struggling to understand your page numbers to some extent: are you
> referring to the one labelled (at the top) 12?  The words Domine ad
> adiuuandum?

No.  The PDF page 11.  In the original, that would be the 14-15
double-page spread.

I mean, it seems like a bit of a stretch to assume I misread "Domine ad
adiuvandum" as "Donec ponem inimicos".

-- 
David Kastrup