Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- an_indiv:0872 [2024/10/04 15:13] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ an_indiv:0872 [2024/11/23 21:38] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 9: / Zeile 9: @@
 {%syn:title:ant:0872%}
-[[ant:0872|↖️]]
+[[0867]] ⟽ **[[cento_an:8typ|AN 8]]** ⟾ [[0873]]
+[[ant:0872|⏹️]] [[rp_hmr:0872|🔄]]
+-------
 {{ :an_indiv:0872_tritonus.png?250|}}
 <fc #4682b4>"inundave-//runt//"</fc> + <fc #4682b4>"//per//-ii"</fc> Das AMn 2005 setzt entgegen dem AM 1934 zu diesen beiden Silben ein si-be-molle ("sa"), ein eklatantes Beispiel von Tritonusphobie, die aber bereits die diastematischen Quellen weitgehend befallen hat. Bei "inundaverunt" schreibt Wc "sa", alle anderen weichen mit "la" der Problemstellung aus. H fordert mit 'altius' einen höheren Ton als "la". Bei "perii" weist Ka mit dem "do" auf ein ursprüngliches "si" hin. Tol + Bv notieren keine Vorzeichen, Wc + Fo notieren "sa".\\
@@ Zeile 25: / Zeile 28: @@
 {{ :an_indiv:0872_tritonus.png?250|}}
 <fc #4682b4>“inundave-//runt//”</fc> + <fc #4682b4>“//per//-ii”</fc> Contrary to the AMn 1934, the AMn 2005 adds a si-be-molle (“sa”) to these two syllables, a blatant example of tritone phobia, which has already largely infested the diastematic sources. In 'inundaverunt', Wc writes 'sa', all others evade the problem with 'la'. H demands a higher tone than “la” with 'altius'. In 'perii', Ka uses 'do' to indicate an original 'si'. Tol + Bv write no accidentals, Wc + Fo write “sa”.\\
-The antiphon is 8th mode, which has no si-be-molle. To see a tritone tension in these two places does not correspond to the melodic circumstances. In the first case, the tenor “sol” and the “fa” are only an alternating tone; in the second case, tenor “la”, the “si” falls to the “sol” and the following “fa” is no longer melodically relevant. The interpretation of the text should also not be neglected here: “inundavérunt - périi” is strangely set to a si-be-molle.
+The antiphon is 8th mode, which has no si-be-molle. To see a tritone tension in these two places does not correspond to the melodic circumstances. In the first case, the tenor is “sol”, and the “fa” is only an alternating tone; in the second case with tenor “la”, the “si” falls to the “sol”, the following “fa” is no longer melodically relevant. The interpretation of the text should also not be neglected here: “inundavérunt - périi” would be strangely set to music with a si-be-molle.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:ant:0872%}