Talk:Ut queant laxis

Punctuation and musical example

There is a problem with the punctuation of the musical example as given. The comma after "fibris" is profoundly problematic as it breaks the subordinate clause ("Ut queant laxis resonare fibris mira gestorum famuli tuorum") in two incomplete (and linked) blocks. The subject is "famuli tuorum" (your servants) in the second block, while the verb is "queant" (that they may be able to) in the first block; already a comma separating verb and subject is suspicious, but it gets worse. The direct object is "resonare mira gestorum", half in each block; putting a comma as suggested also breaks that direct object. ("Laxis fibris" is the circumstantial complement of mean/manner: "with loosened fibres", i.e. nimble vocal chords.)

It is, by the way, worth pointing out that neither the Liber Usualis's 1899 version of the Roman tune nor Solesmes's 1983 version of the Benedictine tune include the wrong comma. Pierdeux (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is my own typesetting of the Benedictine (OSB) tune, in case it would be thought preferable to the current image:

First verse of the hymn "Ut queant laxis", according to the Benedictine tradition

Pierdeux (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, your version is superior for this purpose in every way except one: the relative inaccessibility of the musical notation. Your musical notation is better and more correct, but the billions of people who can't read it (and aren't interested in learning how) forms a barrier to its general acceptance. I can read it tolerably (though slowly), but I'm the only person I know who can claim even that. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Lips

Is Labii reatum (2nd last line) "our lips" or "their lips"? Both of the other translations use the latter. --Menchi 07:44 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Polluti labii reatum means "him who is guilty of polluted lips". Rwflammang (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By no means can it be translated in this way. Labii is genitiv singular of labium, "lip". It isn't possible to discern form these words themselves whether it should be translated as our lip(s) or their lip(s); this depends on the context of the entire text. I haven't been able to look up the verses of the other stanzas though; they might provide a clue to a proper translation. With kind regards, Notum-sit (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Si

What happened to the last note Si? Did it get renamed? Or has it come to mean something else now? Or was that note not ti? --Menchi 04:57, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

Back in the day they didn't consider the whole diatonic scale, just hexachords. B natural would not be in the hexachord starting on C, so it would only be sung to the syllable "mi" in the hexachord starting on G. Hmmm, maybe I should write a page on the Guidonian Hand to explain this to everyone... --Keenan Pepper

"it was originally called "si" from Sancte Ioannes, but was later renamed "ti" to allow each name to start with a different letter"

Wouldn't it make more sense if "si" was changed to "ti" to prevent confusion from the augmented 5th, also called "si"? -Lm

Apparently "si" was renamed to "ti" by Sarah Ann Glover (see Solfège). Btw, in Russian "si" is still used. Top.Squark (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This "ti" is not used in the Romance-speaking countries (French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian) Gwalarn (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

In Guido's time, the augmented 5th was a ridiculous wrong note, and in Guido's time changing the vowels to indicate sharp or flat didn't exist. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Contradiction with Giovanni Battista Doni

According to this article

Ut is now mostly replaced by Do in solfège due to the latter's open sound, probably inspired by the word Dominus (Lord)

However, according to Giovanni Battista Doni

[Giovanni is] Known, among other works, for having changed the name of note Ut (C) renaming it Do after his own family name to ease solfege.

Possibly both possibilities are valid in which case they should appear in both articles Top.Squark (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Solfège has a published source supporting the Doni theory, so I've copied that over to this article in order to rectify the supposed conflict. The dominus theory is still plausible as well, but I haven't yet seen a particularly authoritative source on the matter (and frankly, am too busy to look for one right now). --Tim Parenti (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems conceivable that all the attributions and theories about changing Ut to Do might be spurious. Everything is vaguely plausible, nothing shows evidence. TooManyFingers (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

inaccurate piece?

The sheet music we show is not the original and may not be a faithful transliteration. In particular, there is a note missing in the last syllable of Sante. This is the whole piece. At the very least, there is a discrepancy. — trlkly 10:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no discrepancy "as such". There are simply a large number of slight variants from version to version: Roman version, Benedictine version, Dominican version, Milanese version, Paris version, Rouen version, Sarum version, and so on. That is quite typical of most widespread pieces of Gregorian chant, and especially so in the case of Gregorian hymns. The version of the hymn you propose is the Roman one (according to the 1899 edition of the Liber Usualis). That Roman version would seem to me a much better choice of example than the one in modern notation currently provided on the Wikipedia page --- a version lacking in any sense of phrasing or rhythm... Pierdeux (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)