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

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Kastrup" <address@hidden>
To: "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 5:32 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 4:42 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


You snipped rather ambitiously then, including the part of your text where I 
sought clarification over page numbers.  I was asking about your page 10. 
Page 10 of the PDF does include the text I quoted, and not that which you 
quoted.  It seems a bit of a stretch to assume I would mistake them.

The music on page 14 of the original is also chant.  "Chant" does not imply 
a single voice:

"Gregorian chant was traditionally sung by choirs of men and boys" 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_chant).

--
Phil Holmes