Great question, Angelina. The only rule I know for finding the ictus marks on a psalm recitation is to count backwards by twos from a known ictus mark or a dotted punctum. It's much easier (for me at least) to locate the ictus marks in melismatic chant.

This doesn't feel right with the textual accents.

I can never remember if I'm supposed to be super worried about respecting the textual accents or if I'm supposed to think that aligning the textual accents with the musical accents is the worst thing ever.

The original poster asked about practice with English psalmody. It seems to me that using the two-three method and looking for the "ictus" and worrying about textual versus musical accents is all for Latin chanting, not English.

I find Richard Rice's antiphons have a pleasing alternation between twos, threes, and occasional fours, according to the English stress patterns, and mostly ignoring the bar lines. And I think chanting the verses which go with those antiphons sounds best by respecting the English stresses: give a slight impulse to the stressed syllables and pace them fairly regularly, so that the unstressed syllables in-between vary in speed in a natural way. Doing this doesn't work for Latin at all. And of course you have to decide, for the whole psalm, where the stresses are, including often a downbeat before the first syllable of a line.

This doesn't feel right with the textual accents.

I can never remember if I'm supposed to be super worried about respecting the textual accents or if I'm supposed to think that aligning the textual accents with the musical accents is the worst thing ever

Same here. I tend to follow the words and their natural stresses, because at the end of the day, chant is glorified speech, in every sense of the phrase. However, like you said, I don't know if that's proper practice. It sure is different with English though....

Thanks for the great tips, though, everyone!

I tell my choir that chant is speech set to music. If it sounds odd when spoken, it will sound even more odd when sung.

Maybe because I don't face this on a weekly basis: but surely there is a better way than the above rubrics. Not one of them seems either sufficiently rigorous or sufficiently useable. Has no one had success in 'conducting' these?

I don't believe in the 'ictus' in a mechanical fashion like that that separates the musical from the textual accent, therefore I don't use it. (My theories on this are very embryonic and hard to consolidate at this point - don't ask me to elaborate.)

When directing psalm-tones, whether Latin or English, I always place the 'ictus' (if you want to call it that) on the accent of a word or on an important accent in a phrase - especially in English where there are so many monosyllabic words - and try to show the flow of the text. I have found that the only way to get people to chant a psalm-tone together with the textual accents correct is to get them to recite it together (without music) first, with with proper declamation, and fit the music to that pattern. It's the only way I've found that works. And make sure - especially in English - that the length of the words are roughly what they would be in good spoken language, if all of the puncti are exactly equal, it sounds robotic; as many chant scholars have said: They are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Salieri, I wish there was a super-thank button. You have taken the time to phrase the idea most eloquently, mille remerciements.

CharlesW, My phrase is, "No robo-chanters, please!" Alternately, if they fall into the too-metrical cadential figure and rush over text (I'm talking Anglican chant here), sometimes I actually say, "Square--square--square" to stop the rushing.

I do find that demonstration of what I want to hear (sometimes preceded by demonstration of what not to do in a humorous way) is very effective and least time-consuming.

I have found that the only way to get people to chant a psalm-tone together with the textual accents correct is to get them to recite it together (without music) first, with with proper declamation, and fit the music to that pattern. It's the only way I've found that works.

This makes eminent good sense.

I also have the singers speak the text together whenever we have trouble staying together. It works wonderfully.

Someone who knows this stuff better than me can comment - but I understand that one of the "Old Solesmes" ideals (from whence the "rules" above originate) is precisely to remove the musical accent from the textual accent.

This - from what I can gather - has something to do with some ideas taken from medieval music and rhetoric rules, which were taken from Classical Roman rules, which were taken from Classical Greek rules.

I don't have the academic credentials to make a legit case - so I don't make it a big crusade or anything - but I think the whole thing is ridiculous. The musical and the textual accents ought to align, otherwise you're singing nonsense. It only doesn't feel like nonsense because we aen't native speakers of Latin. If we sang English like that, it would sound ridiculous - and NOT because English is so different than Latin. It would be because we know what English is supposed to sound like.

THE lord is MY shepHERD there IS noTHING that i NEED.



Whenever I mention this, some fussbudget chides me for not understanding Latin accents, and how totally different they are and how Latin is ictic instead of thetic or some other nonsense. I usually get told that my opinion is based on "not knowing" something or other.

No. I know. I just disagree.