Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- an_indiv:0120 [2024/05/28 11:52] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ an_indiv:0120 [2024/11/08 20:02] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 1: / Zeile 1: @@
-[[cento:centologia#centones_antiphonarum|🔘]]  [[grad:0002|IN]] [[grad:0176|GR]] [[grad:0456|TR]] [[grad:0324|AL]] [[grad:0482|OF]] [[grad:0615|CO]]
+[[cento:centologia#centones_antiphonarum|🔘]]  [[grad:0001|IN]] [[grad:0202|GR]] [[grad:0465|TR]] [[grad:0294|AL]] [[grad:0481|OF]] [[grad:0599|CO]]
 <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc>
-[[0001|1️⃣]] [[0019|2️⃣]] ✅ [[0034|3️⃣]] [[0041|4️⃣]] [[0006|5️⃣]] [[0158|6️⃣]] [[0007|7️⃣]] [[0004|8️⃣]]
+[[0001|1️⃣]] [[0019|2️⃣]] ✅ [[0034|3️⃣]] [[0113|4️⃣]] [[0006|5️⃣]] [[0158|6️⃣]] [[0007|7️⃣]] [[0004|8️⃣]]
 <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc>
-**<fc #BD0C11>AN</fc>** [[ant:7001|RP]] [[ant:9815|IV]]  [[alia:alia|alia]]
+**<fc #BD0C11>AN</fc>** [[ant:7016|RP]] [[ant:9921|IV]]  [[alia:alia|alia]]
 ------------------
-[[1833]] ← → [[1835]]
+[[0119]] ← → [[0121]]
 {%syn:title:ant:0120%}
-[[ant:0120|↖️]]
+[[0118]] ⟽ **[[cento_an:qtyp|AN Q]]** ⟾ [[0138]]
+[[ant:0120|⏹️]]  [[rp_hmr:0120|🔄]]
+------
 {{ :ant:0120_comm1.png?200|}}
@@ Zeile 26: / Zeile 29: @@
 -------
-●
+● Zu dir, Herr, erhebe ich meine Seele,
+komm und errette mich, o Herr; zu dir nehme ich meine Zuflucht.
+● To you, Lord, I lift up my soul,
+come and deliver me, O Lord; to you I take refuge.
+-------
+{{ :ant:0120_comm1.png?200|}}
+**[[cento_an:qinc|QINC]]** <fc #4682b4>"Ad **té** domine"</fc> \\
+**[[cento_an:qmed|QMED]]** varies, MR+Wc already raise the final syllable "voca-//vi//" to "mi", the internal syllable "fi-//li//-um" is followed by a clivis, while the St.Gallen tradition lowers "voca-//vi//" to "do" and the internal syllable "fi-//li//-um" is also a "do" between two pedes to "mi". The other manuscripts show uncertainty and a very inconsistent picture of how this exception should be treated.
+cf.:**[[ant:0023]]** Not only the text situation is the same (0023 "vocavi fílium méum - 0120 levavi ánimam méam), but also the melody.\\
+**[[cento_an:qnov|QNOV]]** The inferius at the beginning of the cento prevents the emphasis "//vé//ni et eripe me" and forces the much more correct emphasis "veni et e//rí//pe **me**". "The clivis "me" is extended to a four-note torculus.\\
+**[[cento_an:qter|QTER]]**
+The <fc #ff0000>**"si / sa "**</fc> problem in classical form: accidentals are not written until the 12th century, all late manuscripts write "sa" in the ascent, T1+2, Bv21, MR and B do not know such accidentals. Now the 5th mode and tonus is defined as "F major without b flat", as the scale fa-sol-la-si-do. Obviously it was no longer possible for the aesthetics of the 12th century to sing this scale; a "modern" F major breaks through. In the descent, however, the soft semitone "sa-la", the turn to deuterus, is avoided. Chromaticism "la-**sa**-do-**si**-la" is also inconceivable, so the clearer, harder descent "do-la" is chosen. Only Ka brings "sa" by changing the clefs, "fa" is notated.
+{{ :ant:0120_comm2.png?200|}}
+Our fundamental transcription of the terminatio cento as protus, although all manuscripts that write accidentals notate "sa", is justified by this consideration. Musical aesthetics have always changed; between 800 and 1300 AD Gregorian chant did not always remain the same sound event. Even if hardly an iota or line was changed, iota and line were interpreted according to the taste of the time.
+Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
+-------
+{%syn:analyse:ant:0120%}
-●