On 6 Jan 2007 at 18:05, Robert Patterson wrote: > Ficta or embellishments are my concern.
There's no agreement on what those should be. > Also how to read ligatures, Eh? What's complicated about it? I'm missing something here. > although the particular example is quite simple. Also how to interpret > dashes and dots over/by tones. Added by the monks of Solesmes and modern editors in most cases, so you can ignore them, since they likely don't reflect original sources. > My exposure is mostly limited to one > medieval music survey course 25 years ago, so I don't have the > advantages of many on this list. > > But the biggest problem seems to be an embarassment of different > versions. The PDF I downloaded from > > http://www.cantoambrosiano.com/spartiti.htm > > (Each line has the same music.) The dashes and dots in this transcription tell you nothing beyond the fact that it's the end of a phrase or sub-phrase, something that the two types of semi-barlines already tell you. It's customary to lengthen the last note of a phrase/sub-phrase, but it's not known at all if that is historically correct (it makes sense textually, but we know that they didn't have the same esthetics about the relationship between music and text that we do, post-1600 or so). As to the ligatures, there's only one two-note ligatures in that transcription, and since the bar is on the right, the bottom note is first, and the ligature only tells you that both notes are sung on one syllable. This would often be transcribed as two noteheads with a slur. > Then there is a version in a javascript popup link at > > http://interletras.com/canticum/Eng/Translation_Xmas.html > > (Click the score icon to see it.) > > This version does not match at all the version in the PDF, unless my > reading skills are even worst than I thought. No, it's not even in the same mode. > Finally there is the incipit in HAM 120a. (Thanks to Dennis for > reminding me to go and look there.) However, it seems to be yet > different again from either of these other two. Another unrelated chant. I question why an English musician in the 15th century would be writing an organ piece based on an Ambrosian chant, but maybe I'm unaware of the dissemination of Ambrosian chant. I'd expect an English musician to use the Sarum repertory (see below for a hint of there being a Sarum tune for this hymn text). So, perhaps the bibliographic note in the back of HAM is wrong about the origins of this melody for the chant presented there. For another variant of the PDF version above, see the 1982 Episcopal Hymnal, #55. It's clearly based on the same melody, but the phrase endings seem to have been "Gregorianized," with the falling thirds filled in and the terminating phrase of the verse substantially altered. The 12th-century Einsiedeln manuscript is cited as the source, which would be fairly distant from the original. I found pointers to the 1982 hymnal here: http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/NonEnglish/v eni_redemptor_gentium.htm That suggests that Non komm, der Heiden Heiland is a translation of the text, and you'll note many similarities to the original tune (the 1982 Hymnal version is about half-way between the two, in fact). This page discusses the connection between the Luther hymn and the Ambrose: http://www.bach-cantatas.com/CM/Nun-komm.htm and gives a version of the original with a comparison to the Luther, as well as quite a long history of the use of the Luther melody -- indeed, this is quite a splendid resource for this kind of thing, very beautifully put together. This page: http://www.oremus.org/hymnal/mid/v.html lists variants on the text (but not necessarily the Ambrose tune), and lists German, St. Gall, and Sarum versions, which implies that there were at least 4 different tunes associated with the text (though the German and St. Gall may not be for Veni redemptor gentium, but for some other text beginning with the same two words). I think it's likely that what you're after is the version that Luther used, either in the version in the 1982 Hymnal, or in the version quoted on the detailed cantata page above. > The problem with the web is, of course, a dearth of citations. Or at > least no accepted conventions for providing them, even if they are > there. More than notation help, if anyone can offer guidance in > understanding why the discrepancies exist, that would be a big help. > All three are called "Veni Redemptor Genias--Ambrosian Chant" or > something like that. Well, Ambrosian Chant was never codified like the so-called "Gregorian Chant" (which was actually from Gall, though St. Gall chant is something different entirely, as Old Roman is completely different from Gregorian (though they have some common origins)), so there was plenty of variation. Before the codification of the Gregorian, there was likely just as much variation, but most of it is lost in the mists of time. Basically, you're faced with presenting a version of the Ambrosian chant according to a particular use, i.e., in a specific location, and based on the version transmitted in the chant books from that location. But my bet, as I said above, is that you want one of the two versions I mentioned above, tending towards the melody of Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
