This is a matter of unceasing controversy in my choir.

My understanding is that in the classical Mocquereau/Gajard style, if a dotted punctum occurs at the end of a phrase, it is softened. But this is because the ends of phrases are always softened as this is where the famous "mora vocis," a delay and a dying away of the voice, occurs. This is a nice stylistic touch that is worth adopting even if you do not follow the Solesmes style generally.

However, (and this is the point of controversy) I also understand that in Classical Solesmes the dot does not automatically signal a decrescendo if it occurs in the middle of a phrase. To do so would often be contrary to good taste and common sense.

Also, Marier's interpretation suggests only that the decrescendo occurs over two "beats," which seems rather natural. This is not to say that the dotted punctum is always notably softer than what went before it even on the first "beat," although some interpret it this way.

The recordings of the Solesmes choir under Gajard are very instructive examples on this issue.

These answers are immensely helpful. I love the excellent graphics, Carl. Now I can keep those pictures in my head when I sing.

The point about the dotted punctum in the middle of a phrase is actually what I had most questions about so I appreciate you bringing it up, Robert and Mary Ann, because that was the problem I was running into in tomorrow's Second Alleluia, Exivi a Patre; dotted puncta (I think that's the plural) occur several times smack dab in the middle of melismatic intervals, and it's virtually impossible to sing them the same way as you would at the end of the phrase.

Problem solved. Thanks to all.

who can tell me what is neumi ?thanks

I have to tell you, John, it took me a very long time to learn the "square notes" and the various figures or neums. For a whole year, I cheated and used Achille Brager's organ accompaniment which has the Sunday Latin EF propers in regular musical notation, but I finally took the plunge about six months ago and put away the Bragers and am now able to sing the square notes. I always listen to a CD of the propers as I'm learning them which for me helps a great deal.

By the way, the Schola Bellarmina of Belgium has an excellent set of the propers on CD for the whole liturgical year. They use a very light organ accompaniment (chord progressions only, not the melody line), and it's just exquisite---they're very manly but capable of great sensitivity as well. I listen to these all week long as I'm shuttling my kids around Long Island. We've actually been listening to these for about three years and I never tire of hearing them.

I might be doing this wrong, but I treat all three of those as the same: I lengthen the note.

Seems to me that some of this is rather complex.

There is a simple rule: Sing it as though it were MUSIC.

In all great Western choral literature, a long note is sung with a crescendo or decrescendo. It can NOT lay there like a dead fish. Similarly, in all great Western choral literature (with some rare and artistically 'counter-intuitive' exceptions), the end of a phrase usually is sung with both a decrescendo and rallentando.

In Chant, since text is primary, the word-accent should be noticeable but not pounded. So if the dotted punctum (or any other long-sung note) is on a syllable which is NOT accented in the language, it is sung first piano, then with crescendo to the next word.

Or is that too simple?

With joy.

John, for complete beginner's, this might help:

http://ceciliaschola.org/pdf/squarenotes.pdf

Kenneth

Issues like the "right" tempo, articulation, and phrasing depend on the size of the choir, the acoustic environment, and a dozen other factors that are the prerogative of the director

.

Amen. Except when there's a priest who is absolutely confident that he knows better--without having asked ONE question about the 'factors.'

Agreed with the considerations Incantu lists above.
As someone who prepares choirs for a minimum of five (full) propers a week, I'd add that rehearsal time is also a factor.
With the Choristers, who have several weeks to chip away at propers, I can be more detail-oriented.
With the Choir, who sings weekly or more, I use more guidelines like "the doubled note should not ever be heavy, so err on the side of singing it lightly so as to move with more ease through the line". If I cannot find a good reason for the dot in the middle of a line, and it seems to conflict with the manuscripts, I've been known to (gasp!) ask singers to strike it.

In my cheekier moments I secretly wish the dot had not been added to chant scores. I understand why it was done, and I go along with the dot mostly because singers are using scores with it included, but I wonder how helpful it is once the tradition of chanting has been restored.

The dot in the middle of a line can be a real drag. It can easily deteriorate into being heard as, "ok, now I'm doubling the pulse" instead of having a musical value within a phrase. The airflow, the intent is halted, etc.

Try singing Humbly I Adore Thee out of the 1982 with an Episcopalian organist and you'll realize how needed mid-phrase dots are in performance editions.

BGP, agreed in toto.

I sing the tune with the dots in the middle of each line, as notated in the PBC.

The 1982 blasts through the phrases with equal note values.

I have no sense of the historical-critical legitimacy of either one of these approaches,
but hearing it played "straight" from the 1982 offends my sense of musical and poetical aesthetics.

(This is the same Hymnal that tries to argue with congregations every Advent with it's equal-valued O Come O Come Emmanuel. And don't even get me started on their ridiculous renditions of Of the Father's Love Begotten and Pange Lingua).

My personal sense of things is that somewhere in the late 1800s it was decided that all Episcopalian music had to be as dreary as possible and that, whenever presented with options regarding how to print/arrange/layout a particular hymn, the dreariness guideline was always the deciding factor.

(This is the same Hymnal that tries to argue with congregations every Advent with it's equal-valued O Come O Come Emmanuel. And don't even get me started on their ridiculous renditions of Of the Father's Love Begotten and Pange Lingua).

Just depends on what you're used to. And Of the Father's Love Begotten is simply rendered in a rhythmic mode, easily done in equal note values if preferred (and I think there's a note to that effect in the accompaniment edition).

Scott, a Hymnal 1982 fan who agrees there are flaws, but doesn't agree they're the ones mentioned. :)

I think much of the dot problem points back to how very difficult it is to write rules about specific points of interpretation when giving life and breath to an oral tradition that was not conceived in such a way.

I couldn't agree more. When I've introduced new people to our schola, I give them a "cheat sheet" which helps them get started on the notation - and then I'm so glad when they stop referring to it a couple weeks later.

I'm actually in favor of practicing each phrase by pronouncing it as a sentence first - especially easy with English - and noticing how you don't speak it as a series of equal staccato syllables.

sing that sucker with a more vocis,
sing that sucker with a more vocis,
sing that sucker with a more vocis,
ear-lye in the mornin'!

What Carl said about phrasing.

Mr. Wood- I can't speak to the 82 Episcopalian hymnal but I don't think you and I entirely disagree. I am a big fan of rhythmic marks and think they should be used in things for general public consumption. I also think the Solesmes method is good and useful.

However in the context of singing lots of chant frequently and liturgically (and especially psalmody) the specific example I spoke of, mora vocies mark at the end of a phrase, the mark is completely unnecessary for the thoroughly experienced. when you speak sentences you punctuate them. you don't think about it, 'oh wait I have to briefly pause between sentences...there is a comma coming up be careful make some articulation' you just do it automatically. The same is true with phrasing for those who frequently sing chant. Besides there is a big full bar line you always slacken there.

When my schola is learning a new chant the first thing we do is read the text. First slowly for proper pronunciation and then with normal speech flow (phrasing). I regularly have problems with persons who don't pay attention to the words and rely on the markings they plod along note to note, to fix this I take away the music and make them sing with just the words. This usually fixes the problem. All musical notation is an approximation and somtimes the devil is in the details ... or lack thereof.

Mary Ann. If you don't like dots in your chant then why not try the 1908 gradual ?
I find it refreshingly clear.

Funny thing- one of the gents in the choir had an old copy of the LU from the 30's. It had belonged to Sister (someone- how embarassing- I can't recall her name!).

At any rate, Sister had very many mid-phrase dots crossed out.

When asking singers to strike a dot, I would often ask whether Sister (or her director) agreed. Most often she did. It was like a voice from the past was weighing in during rehearsal. How I wish I could speak with her about it!