Adoramus te, Christe (Anon)
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    I found this unattributed (unless it should be attributed to the last composer listed on a piece in the partbooks?) motet in the Selectae Harmoniae quatuor vocum, De Passione Domini while browsing the internet for some Isaac motets that had not yet been transcribed and uploaded to CPDL.

    It's a charming little piece, which I transcribed from the partbooks found on IMSLP. (See p.42)

    Perhaps someone may find it useful, this Lenten season:
    Adoramus te, Christe
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    unless it should be attributed to the last composer listed on a piece


    After a lot of thought and a bit more research, I've come to the conclusion that it is part of a larger work by Loyset Compère.
    I guess I need to change my composer attribution, but there isn't any reason it shouldn't be left as a stand-alone piece, right?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,178
    Tantum ergo, O Salutaris, Panis Angelicus, Ecce Panis Angelorum and countless office hymns, are all excerpts of longer pieces. So why not?
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,401
    Good instinct! it is the 2nd movement of the Officium de Cruce.
    Thanked by 2CCooze tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    Tom, I agree. Thank you. I may keep setting these pieces as individual pieces attributed to his (and others', as the case appears to be) larger work.
    I'm still working on the Isaac pieces that will be needed later in the year, as well.

    Thanks, Richard.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 1,100
    This past year I extracted the beginning Miserere portion from Antonio Lotti's longer work. The first portion of the work stands well on its own without the rest of the motet (which, in its entirety is beyond my little schola and too long for our purposes). I see no reason why it couldn't stand on its own. In fact, in broader musical praxis it's quite normal to extract certain portions or movements of larger works.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    I'd be interested in some thoughts on a specific part of this work, for those interested in looking.
    (I have all the parts in question in the attached image.)
    The only accidental in the partbooks I used (linked in original post) is in the tenor score. A flattened-ti.
    Admittedly, it makes for a startling phrase, but I left it. I tried to decide if I should offer some optional ficta to soften the blow, but I decided that doing so didn't make a lot of sense, or even "help," and so I left the score as I found it.

    After I perusing the full score (which Richard linked to), I noticed it had no trace of that flat - and so I looked at his source-facsimile, and found that it didn't contain one.

    His source says it's from 1503, and mine says it's from 1538.

    So... should I leave the flat, in all its startling "glory," because that's what my source attribution shows, or should I maybe make it an in-score parenthetical flat, or should I make it a ficta above - both the latter of which should make it more obviously optional to whomever may use my transcription?
    I suppose another option would be to mention in my editorial notes that the flat appears in my source, but not in other sources, and is, therefore, optional.

    Please let me know what you think!
    1155 x 659 - 201K
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,747
    In light of the partbooks being a later edition/publication, I would hazard to guess that the editor put in the flatted B, so it's presence might well be "ficta"-itious. If the editor truly meant to put in the B-flat, in the tenor part, then probably he should have considered (but perhaps overlooked) flatting the matching E in the altus (your first tenor) part. So if you include the B-flat (whether as it stands or as a ficta accidental), then you could just as well add a ficta flat over the altus E. The question then remains, whether to ficta flatten the two E's in the bassus part in m.18 (I would not flatten any more E's after that). You're the editor, and you have a few choices.
    Thanked by 2CCooze tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    Chuck, it's strange either way, isn't it? I went through all of that, and disliked all of it, but had decided to just let the in-score accidental remain... until I saw this earlier edition without it.

    I wonder if the editor accidentally added the accidental. It makes little to no sense. I tried to make sense of it. It's so odd. And in the middle of "Tuam," it reall seems such a shame.

    I think I may remove it and place it as a ficta; possibly parenthetical.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,747
    That's a sound editorial choice, Corinne, especially the parenthetical ficta.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,401
    My own 2¢ is that if your edition is advertised as representing the 1538 source, the flat belongs in the staff, perhaps with a footnote, and your own editorial choices above the staff. But what always counts is that the user can figure out what what you mean without resorting to guessing.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    Yes, I also agree with that, Richard.

    Actually, our schola read through the piece at rehearsal, last night, and the phrase in question went across and sounded surprisingly fine.
    As a whole, especially at the ending "miserere" section, the piece is just beautiful addition to our Lenten repertoire. I'm so happy I happened across it.

    Regardless, I'm thinking I will just add the footnote that the accidental doesn't appear to be original to the work, based on earlier sources, but that it was included in the referenced source.
    *However, as I typed that, it reminded me of the orchestral scores which one has to go through and correct, because apparently purposely making "typos" was a way to avoid copyright issues.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,184
    Thanks, all, for your advice! I appreciate it.