Talk:Crux fidelis (John IV of Portugal)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CPDL #2254

Bar 4-5 Tied G sharp in Alto on "-ter" should be G natural
Bar 26 Soprano 3rd note. de Marco edition has G natural, instead of B, though it does not affect the harmony at all.
Jamesgibb 05:31, 12 March 2011 (CST)

All editions

All three version lack the Amen.

CPDL #2254
In the Marco edition: bars 1-2 Tenor tie missing; bar 5 Tenor 'om-' should be one note earlier; bars 7-8 Alto tie missing; bar 14 Alto 2nd note should be D natural; bar 16 Tenor the quaver should be a D; bar 17 Alto & Tenor 'mi-' shouldn't come until the 2nd beat; bar 21-2 Tenor the E should be tied across the barline with 'cla-' on the F#.
CPDL #23255
In the Gibb edition: bar 8 Sop. 2nd note should be F. The editor missed the semibreve in bar 3, writing a minim instead and missing the crotchet rest and the barring is therefore a travesty thereafter. The final nota cambiata suspension in the tenor is missing.

The original key is G. For a decent edition, see Rutter's published by OUP in 'Ash Wednesday to Easter for Choirs'. Get it right chaps! RMD 08:44, 19 March 2011 (CDT)

RMD's comments

Oh dear! Where to start? Firstly, the amen. Since the three versions he has commented on are from widely separated regions, it is likely that they have been produced from three different source documents. Given that three don't have an amen and only the Rutter version does, it would be more accurate to say that three don't have AN amen, rather than THE amen. Perhaps a more important reason for there being no amen is that it would make no liturgical sense. It is not a prayer or a creed, but a statement about the cross. Saying "so let it be" at the end would be strange, I think.

RMD clearly regards the Rutter version as THE version. However, there is no indication in 'Ash Wednesday to Easter' of the source, nor of what editorial changes Rutter might have made, apart from the indication that the dynamics are his. (He has of course added an English text,but that merely proves that his undoubted competence as a musician does not extend to the sphere of poetry.) No, the Rutter version is just that, another version. Comments which imply that differences are in fact errors are just silly.

On barring, it is difficult to decide what barring would be appropriate in a composition purporting to be 17th century, but probably written in the 19th century. The barring follows the source document, as it happens, (a manuscript copy in the Dunstable choir library) but in fact accords with my own views that barring is there merely as an aid to performance. I'm happy to report that a reasonably competent parish choir can surmount the travesty of the barring with ease!

On a more general point, I think one of the reasons that CPDL works so well is that most contributors value the co-operative nature of it and are happy to be open about who they are, when commenting on other people's contributions. I feel distinctly uncomfortable about people who hide behind initials. However, in deference to RMD's musical sensitivities, I will mark my version as an arrangement. If he objects to that, I hope he will go on to object to practically all the Bach chorales, which differ significantly from the original versions!

Jamesgibb 12:04, 23 March 2011 (CDT)

Amens and such

An 'Amen' is liturgically inappropriate for this Good Friday text, used for the adoration of the cross. Since the origin is spurious, one finds it highly unlikely that debates over underlay lead one to the 'right' or 'wrong' version, as well as "original key". I have contributed an edition set in A-flat to comfortably accommodate most modern mixed church choirs. A plethora of keys, words and notes! - Paul Marchesano Marchesa (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)