Trial balloon here: I've started several times to write a progressive series of singing lines, both to build up sight singing and to encourage finding the differences in pitch that I write about all the time. Might a "Progressive English Propers" be useful to anyone? Building through the church year from DO-SI-RE (high)- DO, DO-LA-RE(low)-DO, etc etc etc. One part, then maybe two part, eventually three part.
I'd be very interested to see what you come up with, William. Would you be willing to dash off a couple of examples? I think that two- and three-part "PEP" would be very useful to folks who work with small-to-medium choirs.
Here is one example, text taken from Ryand's SEP book #1. No offense intended at all, nor any correction implied, just an example.
My notion is that the second line is either a second voice part or an organ line; if the latter, the small notes, which would be tuned by a voice, would be omitted. I'd provide instructions for the intonatiom markings, but as in other things I've posted, the black-down-triangle is a comma-low tuned note, the others (in this example) very close to their equal-tempered equivalents.
And despite my opinion expressed in a neighbor thread about neumes etc, I used this notation because it is fast and familiar. I'm not accustomed to square notes or neume notation, but will refresh myself if and when I go forward with this.
Update, i think another thread here answered my query: no need for another simple, chantlike setting of the psalms for the year, even if it takes into account intonation. As Irishtenor has intimated before, perhaps relatively straightforward polyphonic settings might be useful.
I can criticize the Joques, the Nickel, the Oost-Zimmer, the Rice, the Ford, the Schmitt, the Porfiri .. but what's the point.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.