"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> > To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> > Cc: "Son_V" <vincenzo.a...@gmail.com>; <lilypond-user@gnu.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 4:42 PM > Subject: Re: Humble question, text at the second note in a ligature > > >> "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> >>> To: "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> >>> Cc: "Son_V" <vincenzo.a...@gmail.com>; <lilypond-user@gnu.org> >>> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2014 4:17 PM >>> Subject: Re: Humble question, text at the second note in a ligature >>> >>> >>>> "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> 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 _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
