In Praise of Unity in Method
  • An interesting turn of events at the St. Cecilia sacred music workshop took place that (IMHO) teaches an important lesson about chant and method. Because we have a shortage of priests, there was no Candlemas liturgy scheduled on the second day of the workshop. A priest who was attending volunteered to offer a Mass in the morning, and he requested some singers to sing the propers. We were all too exhausted to think of practicing that previous evening. So we gathered in the morning, about 20 minutes before Mass began and put together a plan for the music.

    There were six of us from different areas in the country. All of us had been trained in the classical Solesmes style of reading and singing chant. The schola directed gave the pitch and we navigated the notes rhythms of the introit and communio of the day. To our excitement and astonishment, there were no disagreements or conflicts on how it should be sung. We treated the controversial aspects of rhythm (episemas, quilismas, the salicus, etc.) according to the rules that are traditional in the Mocquereau/Gajard/Turkington practice. We did all of this with no discussion at all.

    And the result was near unity from the very first time we sang. This gave us confidence as a group. We ran through them once or twice more, and the liturgy began. The results were just beautiful in every way.

    It was an excellent demonstration of why there needs to be a universal standard for rhythm and interpretation, at least something that everyone can agree on as a starting point. All of us had been singing chant in our parishes in a manner that permitted us to combine our experiences into a single voice. I seriously doubt that this kind of unity can be expected even of an orchestral group being ask to perform a concerto. My respect for the old school soared after this experience.

    That's not to say that smaller scholas serving specialized purposes cannot involve themselves in deep studies of the Triplex, or experimenting with style, rhythm, and even notes. All of this is fine and even welcome as a source of scholarship and interpretive life. But on such occasions as this, there has to be some basic structure of interpretation so that the chants can be sung even when there is very little rehearsal time. This, I believe, is what the old school was trying to get at in advancing its rhythmic principles.

    It also helped me realize something that is hugely important for the future. The traditional approach to singing chant has made great strides in the last five years or so. A consensus has emerged, at least in the United States, in favor of singing the chant precisely as it has long been sung in the old Solesmes style, with its legendary freedom and beauty.
  • JDE
    Posts: 588
    Solesmes: the Esperanto of the cantiverse.

    When I go to the Tridentine Mass in Jacksonville in a couple of weeks I'll see if they are using it as well. That should be interesting.
  • PhatFlute
    Posts: 219
    Can one explain Unity Method to phil? Thank you,

    Ph
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Jeffrey is expressing his gratitude for the fact that the classic Solesmes style of chant singing is widely known, so that chant singers from various places and various choirs can follow the same interpretation of chant notation and sing together.

    It is not the most up-to-date method from a scholarly (musicological) point of view, but for practical use it provides a way to render the chant with some beauty.
  • Now all we need is a similar straight jacket for Tallis and Palestrina, and Bach and Bruckner, and Vaughan Williams and Poulenc... so that singers from various places can follow the same interpretation and sing together.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    similar straight jacket


    They teach this in grade school music classes.

    QUARTER NOTES ALWAYS GET ONE BEAT.

    (And it is no wonder so many organists play tunes from the 40 and 82 so freaking slowly.)
  • PhatFlute
    Posts: 219
    O I see now ! Phil was a being silly !,

    Ph
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    QUARTER NOTES ALWAYS GET ONE BEAT.

    What happens in 6/8 time? For example, "Row, row, row your boat" ???
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    What happens in 6/8 time?


    GOOD QUESTION
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    What happens in 6/8 time?


    Isn't that the Gloria time? ;-)
    Thanked by 2Salieri francis
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    Isn't that the Gloria time?

    Maybe for Peloquin and quite a few others. But my own is in 3/4 time that has a rather hemiolic feel that does its best to suppress the otherwise inexorable feel of an overemphasized downbeat in every measure.
    Thanked by 1Salieri
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    QUARTER NOTES ALWAYS GET ONE BEAT

    O, how I wish we could get back to the half-note standard.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I think Orff had a good thing going when he would notate above the staff 4/(a quarter note) for our 4/4, and 2/(a dotted quarter note) for our 6/8.

    Too bad it never caught on.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    Actually, it's too bad we couldn't go back to mensuralization. (Like in the Renaissance.)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    I think Orff had a good thing going when he would notate above the staff 4/(a quarter note) for our 4/4, and 2/(a dotted quarter note) for our 6/8.

    Too bad it never caught on.

    Yes, but, when the numerator N of a time signature is divisible by 3, it has always been the case that the number of beats in a bar is N/3. Hence, 6/8 (or 6/4) is really a duple rhythm with triplet subdivision, 9/8 (or 9/4) is a triple rhythm with triplet subdivision, and 12/8 (or 12/4) is a quadruple rhythm with triplet subdivision. Triple rhythms (with duple subdivision) is typically 3/4 (or 3/2).

    I agree that the half-note standard beat, with duplet subdivision, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2 is much better ... less ink, fewer (if any) beaming issues, greater legibity.

    The rhythmic principles behind mensuralist notation are excellent and do carry over, albeit in a different way, to modern notation (as hinted above in this post), but the mensuralist notation itself is, for modern musicians, a beast to decode properly and sometimes is not always clear (to those of us who have not lived 3 or 4 centuries ago).
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Hence, 6/8 (or 6/4) is really a duple rhythm with triplet subdivision, 9/8 (or 9/4) is a triple rhythm with triplet subdivision, and 12/8 (or 12/4) is a quadruple rhythm with triplet subdivision.


    Which is why I suggested:
    6/8 = 2/dotted-quarter
    9/8 = 3/dotted-quarter
    12/8 = 4/dotted-quarter

    or

    6/4 = 2/dotted-half
    9/4 = 3/dotted-half
    12/8 = 4/dotted-half

    I agree that the half-note standard beat, with duplet subdivision, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2 is much better ... less ink, fewer (if any) beaming issues, greater legibity.


    I disagree with this. Ink is not a precious commodity (yet), and beaming (when done correctly) is actually a help to understanding the division of the bar.

    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • Well, ink is wicked expensive, though. I don't know, however, how much quicker ink would run out printing at quarter-note beats versus half-note beats.
  • PhatFlute
    Posts: 219
    He he he I see, yes. Phil was silly or also stupid,
    Ph