Oral tradition in Flender compared to Haïk-Vantoura's deciphering key

I am an impatient reader, as you can tell. But I can't ignore that other scholars have opportunities I have not had, and I want to do them justice. I never travelled to see original manuscripts in the 19th century but I respect Wickes even if I think he is wrong on many points.

I have not had the opportunity to study in a University setting in Israel, so I must do Flender the honour of comparing his transcription of psalm 19 to what Haïk-Vantoura has done. I cannot say what the history of cantillation and psalms prosody has been but I know a design when I see it because I have worked in software design for over 55 years. 

Still I must let the comparison tell us what it can. So here is psalm 19 in both versions. Don't sing them together. They are not exactly compatible. He uses the same technique as I have used in the Hebrew text above the lines. But our notes get out of sync because of differences in note values. He uses eighth notes and quarters. My choice was the quarter note. (The difference is inconsequential for recitative -- but he appears to be recording differences in note duration.) That's why I put the transcribed lyrics in -- to help us see possible synchronizations and yet to let the differing notations coexist in the same score.

Psalms 19: (Verses 1 to 4) Comparing an oral tradition with Haïk-Vantoura

The tonal center of the oral tradition recorded appears to be g major rather than e minor. They are closely related keys. (I have let the deciphering key version take the default mode in this post.) The parts that are not transcribed seem to indicate that the reciting continues on the same pitch until the next syllable with a note. 

Revia seems to be treated the same way in the two instances in verse 1 and 2: f#-g in the oral tradition. Revia-mugrash seems to be passed over. The silluq returns to the tonic g at the end of each of the first 3 verses, but verse 4 carries on and verse five carries on to verse 6 where the f#-g fulfills both the revia and the return to the tonic (bar 30). Verse 6 pauses on the silluq (f#-g bar 35).

Psalms 19: (Verses 5 to 7)  Comparing an oral tradition with Haïk-Vantoura

The singer seems to like the note B where there is an accent (qadma bar 37) in preparation for the revia in bar 38, which is sung as for the earlier standalone revias. So there is some consistency in the approach based on clues in the accents. This seems very similar however to the rise to the B in the only verse in this psalm that has an ole veyored. (Verse 10 is briefly noted in my earlier post and still to come below.) I suspect that the singer knows and feels right with these harmonic relationships and therefore applies them in what look like similar situations. There is no ole-veyored in this verse but the qadma revia combination still allows the harmonic motif to stand. There is a similar motif in verse 7 when approaching the tonic B A f# g. Perhaps the revia mugrash is observed here.

Looking through the rest of the poem, I note, from the end -- that it ends on e rather than g, as if a finalis was remembered from old time.

There is some initial inconsistency in the observation of atnah. It is a g in the second verse but consistently f# in all subsequent verses except verses 8 and 9, where it is also g. What is remarkable is that there are multiple recitation notes, so this tradition retains some of what Haïk-Vantoura has recovered by her thesis that the accents under the text are a consistent scale.

Psalms 19: (Verses 8 to 15) Comparing an oral tradition with Haïk-Vantoura

Note how the low c's are not sung. This note is off the scale for the poetry. I don't know what they represent. There may be errors in my transcription of the Flender part. The black lines are not supported by my music software but I was able to paste a line image onto the score from paint!