Talk:Venite ad me omnes (Jacobus de Kerle)

ScoreErrors in #64745

Bar 12/13 Soprano2: tied note b♭ for f
Bar 42 Alto: 2 ¼ notes (f) for one ½ note (resulting in diferent text underlay)
Bar 68 Alto: last note wrong text underlay: "a" for "et"
Bar 80-84 Tenor: wrong notes: (2tied 1/1 notes f, ½ g, ½g, 1/1 rest, ½f, ½g) for (½f, ½g, ½f, ½f, 1/1 rest, 1/1f, 1/1g)
Bar 101 Alto: 2 ¼ notes (c) for one ½ note (resulting in diferent text underlay)
Gerd Eichler (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2021 (CEST)

ScoreErrors in #33423

Bar 10 Alto2: 2nd note b♭ instead of f
Bars 76-80 Tenor: wrong notes: (2tied 1/1 notes f, ½ g, ½g, 1/1 rest, ½f, ½g) for (½f, ½g, ½f, ½f, 1/1 rest, 1/1f, 1/1g)
Gerd Eichler (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2021 (CEST)

Gerd:Bars 76-80 is not an error as such, but a difference in solution to an error in the original print. Yours does not agree with the source either. However, I find your solution marginally preferable to mine, and am arranging to amend my pdf accordingly. The other error is entirely of my own generation.

Thank you for revealing these two eccentric and distinctive errors; they highlight a suspicion that I have held for some time, which is that when it comes to matters of intellectual property Wetzel's grasp on the concepts of meum and tuum is distinctly tenuous. Strange is it not that he makes exactly the same errors that I did?Cjshawcj (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Christopher, I'm not sure about your original source. I transcribed my score from a digitized original print held in the Bavarian State Library of Munich:

unfortunately you are also missing the suspensions between the tenor and the soprano/canuts. (see illustration)

with kind regards, Gerd Eichler (talk) 12:20, 20 June 2021 (CEST)

Gerd: Thank you for a most comprehensive illustration. I used the same source as you have done. The only significant difference is that I inverted Cantus I and Cantus II since the latter is the (slightly) higher part, and is uppermost when they (briefly) travel in thirds. I am puzzled, because my revision (as mentioned above) satisfies the criteria that you have raised again. All I can think is that you are still consulting my unrevised pdf. The revised version was uploaded on 19th June, and should have been viewable at the time of your second writing. It now definitely is. Regards, Cjshawcj (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)