Talk:The Lord's Prayer (Robert Stone)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CPDL #29620

-Note values twice those of CPDL #23808. Both claim original note values. Is one wrong, or does the difference represent different sources? If different sources, why do both editions contain the dotted notes said to be distinctive to one?

-Bodleian Sch e 420-422 lacks the tenor part. Has this been taken from the printed source, or has the reconstruction by James Wrightson (c.1995 reprint of that manuscript ISBN 0895793113 still in copyright, I should imagine) been used or has a new reconstruction been made? [subsequent addition: seems to be pretty well the same as CPDL #23808, but with different accidentals.]

-Accidental (sharp) on "Thy" (Thy will be done) improbable. Is this explicitly repeated from the previous note in the source?

-FWIW final repeat (m.s. source) represents response usage (final line repeated) demanded by the 1549 prayer book, dropped by 1559 prayer book.

-"All evil" improbable: No prayer book requires "all". Evil then has to be sung as one syllable (a form of estuary English not known at that time). A misreading of ei vil, perhaps?

CPDL #23808/24220

-note values query as above

-minor typo: "Let us not be lead into temptation" should read "....led..." unless you like your heavy metal homophonic.Cjshawcj (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've gone by Anthony Greening's description of his sources (the Day print & Wanley ms.) in Anthems For Choirs. including as much from the latter as feasible, such as the low F at "against us.". Googlebooks shows the critical comments of Wrightson's Wanley edition for RRMR (vol 99), which describe two additional ms. concordances, both with variant endings, so the last word has clearly not been spoken. Some of your questions I'll attempt to answer again after looking at the microfilm, but for now:
  • the sharp on "Thy" might seem funny at first, but it does make one rethink the rhythmic grouping that might seem implied by the barlines (I kept these as a convenience for comparing editions)
  • the response usage is interesting! Wrightson gives two 1539 sources as the best match for the text, both missing "all".
  • My memory might be tricking me, but I think I've come across other instances of monosyllabic "evil". Richard Mix (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)