Unterschiede

Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.

--- gr_indiv:0719 [2025/04/27 23:43] – xaverkainzbauer
+++ gr_indiv:0719 [2025/10/19 14:27] (aktuell) – xaverkainzbauer
@@ Zeile 1: / Zeile 1: @@
+[[cento:centologia#centones_missalis|🔘]] [[0017|IN]] [[0174|GR]] [[grad:0465|TR]] [[0325|AL]] [[0480|OF]] **<fc #BD0C11>CO</fc>** <fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc>
+✅ [[0613|2️⃣]] [[0610|3️⃣]] [[0599|4️⃣]] [[0601|5️⃣]] [[0621|6️⃣]] [[0624|7️⃣]] [[0615|8️⃣]]
+<fc #ffffff>xxxxx</fc> [[ant:0001|AN]] [[ant:7009|RP]] [[ant:9862|IV]]  [[alia:alia|alia]]
+------------------
 [[0718]] ← → [[0720]]
+{%syn:title:grad:0719%}
-{%syn:title:grad:0719%} [[grad:0719|⏹️]]\\
+[[0713]] ⟽ **[[cento_gr:cento_co1|CO 1]]** ⟾ [[0720]] <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> [[grad:0719|⏹️]]
+ <fc #ffffff>xxx</fc> GT 484- GN 1/276 - BzG 40/39
-GT 484\\
-BzG 40/39 - GrN 1/276
 --------
 <fc #4682b4>"veni-//re// post me //ab//-neget"</fc> \\
@@ Zeile 18: / Zeile 20: @@
 If anyone wants to follow me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.
 -------
+<fc #4682b4>“veni-//re// post me //ab//-neget”</fc> \\
+A text with a lot of emotional tension. This should play a role in the assessment of the tritone (“si”). The current FML circulatio “//ab//-neget” does not fit with semitone tension. The formula leads to “si,” Kl writes “do.”
+In “veni-//re//,” however, Y + Kl avoid ‘si’; the late sources Mp, Mod, and Zt write “sa.”\\
+We also argue for “si” here; it is well prepared by the “sol” “ve-//ni//-re,” and the following ‘fa’ is still latent from the beginning of “Qui vult.” The passage is easy to sing.  There is no reason to assign “venire post me” to a different tonality than “abneget semetipsum.” The composer contrasts the tetrachord “do-fa” with the tetrachord “sol-do.” This stark contrast corresponds to the text. The si tension is resolved at the end “//et// sequatur me”: “do.”
+BzG: This CO belongs to liturgical year B.
 -------
 {%syn:analyse:grad:0711%}