The mode of directing Anglican chant is not dissimilar from that of directing other chant, such as Gregorian. Chris, just above, is onto it. In any chant it is the text which guides the rhythm, and the manual gestures made in conformity with and indicative of that rhythm.

Never, ever, beat out each word. I have seen some do this in a frenetic attempt to move the chant along. The result is (other than being a comical spectacle) slower and slower, just the opposite of what the poor director had in mind. Generous, even emphatic gestures, graceful to behold and indicative of textual stress and pulse, are what should be cultivated.

This means that, just as in Gregorian chant, one studies the text and its inherent rhythm before pointing the text, directing it, or singing it. Do not play every word and syllable on the piano or organ! Sing it to your choristers. Chant is sung. To teach it one must be able to illustrate it by singing it according as to how one wishes it to be sung. Anyone who illustrates chant of any kind on piano or organ hasn't a clue as to what chant is, let alone how to teach it.

Practice by taking a sample text and marking the points of vocal stress, Some of these will be stronger, and others weaker accents. These would be the points of gesture for the choirmaster. In between these points graceful arches or wave-like movements may help to indicate flow. Look for word or syllable entities that represent triplet, duplet, quadruplet, quintuplet, etc., units and allow them to flow from one stress gesture to the next. When a line begins on a weak syllable followed by a strong one, I typically indicate that by a an upward gesture followed by a downward stress which then arches gracefully to the next stress.

Too, one may wish to stop at punctuation marks, if not all of them then at carefully selected ones. The idea is that the grammar and syntax always take precedence, but also that the line doesn't become too chopped up. For me, the more punctuation that I can honour with aplomb the better.

Also too: there are times when one may wish to add an extra pulse or two to an accented word or syllable, this for textual clarity and grace. Whatever you do, do not over emphasise the cadences. There should be a seamless rhythmic flow from the recitation note through to the end of the cadence.

Here are a few sample lines:

1. From Psalm XCIII -
The Lord is King and hath put on glorious apparel...
(Here one may wish to give 'King' two or even two and a half extra pulses, whilst accenting heftily but but gliding right over 'glorious' to what is glorious, namely the apparel. Every line should flow like speech - an orator's speech, that is.)


2. From Psalm XV -
Lord who shall dwell in thy tabernacle? * or who shall rest upon thy holy hill?
(Here one wishes to glide from a very light accent on the initial 'Lord' to a stronger one on 'dwell', and glide even more smoothly to the important object, the tabernacle. Then cleanly drive forward to 'rest', making sure to pronounce rest ('st' and all) very distinctly, while moving to a guttural 'upon'. Do not allow 'restapon' here, and be vigilant about similar instances elsewhere - never run two words together, and always begin an initial vowel gutturally. 'Rest upon thy' should be thought of as a quadruplet whose important target is the accented 'holy hill'. The 'holy hill', obviously, presents us with something of a double accent - be sure that, to emphasise this, the second syllable of 'holy' is noticeably quieter than the two accents that surround it. This is an opportunity for vocal grace. The '-ly' is really very subservient to the 'ho' and the 'hill', whose 'h's should be made the most of.)

More could follow, but I feel like stopping now. This should give you a good basis for progress.

Here is an offering about accents. These are difficult for some who aren't trained singers (and! for some who are). Practice having your choir sing several soft notes followed by a loud (accented) one followed by one sung softly (very softly!). You could do this with a word like 'atonement', holding the final syllable out for a short while. Or something like Christus vincit, with exaggerated accents and very, very soft second syllables. Do this over and over ad nauseam. This is an accent. Too often amateur singers will sing a loud accent but not back off the following note. The result is not an accent but a crescendo. Nowhere in musicdom is accent (which defines word rhythm) more essential than in chant. You cannot rehearse the correct manner of accent too much.

(And Oh! If you are choirmaster and organist, you will need to do all this with your head and face.)

Reading Jackson's comments made me think.

Is the fact that the ICEL text of the Mass (the one approved in the 1970s) part of the reason for the disappearance of chant? What I mean is this: while it's possible to sing lots of texts using Anglican or Gregorian chant, language which is so crafted as to have no natural cadences (because the beauty of the language has been hunted to the point of extinction) doesn't lend itself to being sung to music which highlights the textual flow?

a studied abruptness which is discouraging to sing. It is studiedly sparse, almost purposefully lacking in imagery, and wastes no words in what seems to be a cultivated, arid, brevity.

An interesting observation. I seem to recall this way of dealing with language was all the rage in mid 20th century experimental theatre. cf. Growtowski, Brook, etc. (Artists whose work I greatly admire, BTW. -- For other reasons than their approach to language and translation.)

One wonders where the impetus for this trend came from.

Brook (and, I think, Grotowski) was interested in distilling language. But he was doing this as an experiment: What is the least that is needed?

They did this with other aspects of theatre performance, as well. They were trying to discover something about the nature of the art.

That's quite different than the anti-culturalists who declared: The least needed is all we should have.

After thought: The KJV translators were also concerned about declaiming, and allegedly tested every verse for both accuracy (dynamic equivalence) and delivery.
Questions: Why did the Anglicans stick with Coverdale? For that matter, why did we Romans stick with a pre-Jerome version of the psalms?

Why did the Anglicans stick with Coverdale?

The BCP predates the KJV.

They could have updated the Psalter to conform to the AUTHORIZED VERSION when they redid the BCP in 1662 , but --- given the primacy of the Divine Office over the Eucharist, and the place of Psalms therein, the Coverdale would have become very familiar by that time.

(Not that British royalty had very many other qualms about snatching away that which was familiar and instituting all manner of decrees and novelties during that period. So... I guess your question still stands.)

Methinks that the honourable Salieri hath spoken veritie. Pitie it is that his logick was not in force amongst ye mightie king's majestie and his lordes all with regard to ye Sarum Usage some manie yeares afore.

This is kinda fun. A bunch of guys stuck in the wrong century. My personal, kicking and screaming conducting style on Anglican Chant has all to do with the text. Having evolved from a non-keyboard, symphony trombonist and instrumental conductor to a full time Compliner, the road was fraught with a complete lack of carryover technique. Since there is no meter, no bar lines, no rhythmic notation, I use the 2, 3, and 4, beat length icti, and just 1 beat for the final ending or one syllable chord. Herein lies the problem. At first I was conducting way too much. As the choirs learned about the natural stresses and releases; lengthening and shortening within the chant text I gradually conducted less and less becoming just an ictus machine. In general, multi-syllabic words are spoken or chanted a little faster than one or two syllable words. At the beginning of the reciting tones, the band just gets a downbeat and they take it from there. There is some stylistic information for them included in that downbeat. At least I'm hoping that's the case. I use a bit more time beating on the changing chords around the mediant and near the final cadence to get through the mine field of when to change the harmony to fit the text in that verse. So, my final word is: less is more. If you conduct less, the choir will be forced to listen more. They are probably not following you anyway, so just tell them what you want and get out of the way. It's been my observation that nothing on this forum creates more turf warz than how to interpret chant. I'm reminded of my section leader, Ralph Sauer in the LAPhil. He once told me, "I have the correct reading of this" pointing to a passage in Wozzek that we were recording. jefe
Here is a link to last Sunday's Compline with Voces angelorum where we chanted an amalgam Harmonized Anglican chant with two composers on the Psalm. https://www.dropbox.com/s/pkeq4atmtq6u12b/20161002.mp3
P.S. I should mention we never use any accompaniment either in rehearsal or on the gig, save our penchant for using handbells. We have now graduated to using only handbells for giving the key tone for a given piece. I don't even have a keyboard part on any of my arrangements. It's a crutch that always forces the singers into the 'non-reader' hovel. But, then again, I'm not a keyboard player.

ICEL, or other computeresque language that reeks of late XXth century aversion to richness in liturgical language.

The ICEL's Miserere (last OT 24) wasn't really erring on the side of normal XXc word order, was it? One can't call it an enrichment:

...and of my sin cleanse me. R

...and your holy spirit take not from me. R

…a heart contrite and humbled, O God, you will not spurn. R