Talk:Ingrediente Domino (Cristóbal de Morales)

11011

No contact details seem to be available for the editor. I think the solution to the error in the source in bar 50 in the cantus (i.e. top) part is very likely to be: semibreve/whole note C followed by minim/half-note B flat. The footnote to this bar should read 'orig. B flat', incidentally. I have some thoughts about editorial flats, too: for example, in bars 49 and 50, where the tone centre is B flat, both the Es (in the 2nd and 3rd voices) should be flattened, I believe. All these comments also apply to the parallel passage in bars 88-90. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mick Swithinbank (talk • contribs) on 09:32, 24 January 2009.

1. The problematic passage (bars 46 on + plus corresponding bit in pt 2) is still not correct - the errors of the earlier edition lie in a failure to understand a couple of note values in the original (issues of perfection and alteration), and I think that has misled you. If you want to issue a further version, I would be happy to supply you with the correct reading.

2. There is nothing in the 1543/5 & 1546/9 prints to say that this is by Morales - the title pages are frequently misunderstood, but actually make it clear that these are anthologies. The work is anonymous and in this case, it is from a stylistic point of view clearly not by Morales, and that is the consensus amongst Morales scholars.

3. The problem of attribution applies to many of the works firmly labelled as by Morales on the cpdl site taken from one or other of these prints. A reasonably up-to-date summary of the position is in the publication on Morales cited on the Morales page, and I have done further work to determine the likelihood of Morales's authorship for those anonymous motets where another attribution no longer exists. Again, I would be willing to share the results of that to get Morales's page in better shape, if you so wish.

Jamesgibb (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC) on behalf of Martin Ham