Excellent!

An Idiot's guide that included MP3 recorded samples would be even more helpful . . . I read Bruce's paper, but I still feel like I would need to hear all the examples before I really "got" it . ..

I understand Ligeti, John Cage and the harmony of Percy Grainger better than I understand adapting Gregorian Psalm tones to the English language T__T

I'm just glad I'm not alone ^__^

thanks again Bruce!

I don't doubt that listening may be the best way to learn how to SING psalms. Whether one can learn much about pointing psalms (particularly English psalms) from listening is another question.

Simple processes described in written words can sometimes seem more complex than they are, and explaining them lucidly can be uncannily difficult. I am not surprised that some people are finding the TEXT of my essay impenetrable, even though I struggled to make it lucid. I believe, however, that examining and SINGING the musical examples will make the meaning of the text much clearer. Doing so, I think, would be more helpful than listening to recorded singing.

I think the title was tongue in cheek. I'm no idiot either, but I'm definately challenged by this subject. The recorded examples would be helpful because not all of us are visual learners - some are aural, others tactile. Us aural folks need a listening example and I imagine the tactile folks would need a hands-on walk-through . . .

A very interesting and informative discussion, Bruce. I have seen next to no treatments of Gregorian psalmtones as applied to English texts, certainly none as (potentially) thorough as yours.

I'm not sure recourse to Cardine is particularly helpful, except to support your rhetorical point. The fact is, most people interested in Gregorian psalmtones will use the Liber usualis as their primary source. The discussion there may reflect a classic Solesmes bias (i.e., the rhythmic theories promoted by Mocquereau and Gajard), which are tending toward out-of-favor these days. However, I don't think it necessarily impedes successful and musical recitation of psalmody (even without recourse to syneresis and other theoretical arcana).

Once absorbed through frequent and consistent singing of the Psalms (best done in the context of the Divine Office), the Liber method can then be applied to vernacular texts, using the inherent musical taste and common sense of the singer/adaptor. That common sense will take as many forms as there are singers/adaptors, no doubt. We have all heard Gregorian psalmtones applied to English texts in a manner that severely distorts the original melodies, with eccentric and inconsistent results. Those eccentricities, if they are not the result of a facile understanding of the original Latin formulas, usually reflect an honest attempt to maintain proper English declamation, often at the expense of the melodies.

Having wrestled with this issue for a couple decades, I would suggest the real problem is an inflated sense of "proper English declamation." English hymnals are filled with texts that defy the metrical demands of the music for a given stanza. Such metrical anomalies are in the nature of poetry, which would be much the poorer without them. When we sing these hymns, we accommodate their anomalies, not by distorting the music, but by a momentary mental shift that reorders our rhythmic priorities. This is second nature to us by now.

Surely, the same can be done when we sing English prose on psalmtones. Your examples of problematic accentuation, like the one on page 7, leave me scratching my head. I just don’t hear the problem. In my experience, nearly any Gregorian formula can be used effectively with any English text, if it is sung musically, with an ear to proper English diction.

As suggestive as it might be, it is not the melodic rhythm that determines the textual rhythm. The two are independent phenomena. It is in the subtle weaving of the two—sometimes reinforcing one another, sometimes at odds—that the magic of chant shines forth. So, when we encounter a line of florid chant on a word of several syllables, in which the accented syllable receives a single punctum, while the unaccented syllables surrounding it receive complex neumes (as so often happens), we need not distort the music by unduly lengthening the accented syllable. It is sufficient merely to note it, to mark it, to appreciate it, in a way that is bound to be perceived aurally. The text is thus declaimed, while the musicality of the line is preserved. That was the primary rationale behind Mocquereau's theory, and it remains to this day the least understood and most often caricatured.

This is why I find Cardine's assertion fundamentally flawed. "All styles of 'Gregorian' chant are, in fact, vehicles for declamation." Well, sure. But only because they are used to declaim sacred texts in the context of liturgy. But take away the text, and the music remains. It has its own declamatory imperative, its own rhythmic integrity (irrespective of how one chooses to parse that rhythm), and its own rhetorical impact. To deny those is to deny Gregorian chant its status as music.

So, when it comes to applying Gregorian psalmtones to English texts (or Latin, for that matter), I am very reluctant to manipulate the melodic formula to enhance my (quaintly naive) understanding of the word accents. Let the formulas stand on their own, in both their integrity and flexibility. And let the singers prove that flexibility, by their intelligent and sensitive singing of the text.

I'm also struck by Richard's case for Mocquereau (the point would probably apply to Pothier too). Reading Cardine, I've wondered whether he and his school of thought have really gone too far with this declamation idea, disproportionately focusing on text at the expense of art. One detects a hint of the rationalism of the Medicean school of chant at work here. It is very interesting to look at the 1867 Gradual we have online and see what they did to the chant. They had a strict idea in mind: no melismas on off accents, primacy of text over music, declamation trumps art. So it helps in understanding Mocq what it is he (and Pothier) were trying to repair and displace. I'm not at all well schooled in these debates but it is not a stretch to see the possibility of a repeat of the same errors that developed after Trent now affecting the Cardine school. In fact, if you read Fr. Ruff's book, he quotes Cardine followers who specifically and overtly deny that chant is music at all, a contention that Fr. Ruff rejects but one which shows where this line of thought can lead.

I don't think anyone is wanting to apply a formula so rigid that it only looks at the accents. But it could be useful in the real world - where pastors expect their music directors to present congregations with English RPs every week.

And Sam, you are right that declamation involves bringing across the meaning of the text and is not just about accents. And yes, the Gregorian melodies have an integrity of their own that speaks, or sings, rather, volumes. I do not agree, however, that you can always apply it to English successfully and that its beauty will always shine forth. Sometimes it just makes for a clumsy combination. This discussion can go on and on, and I'm pretty certain we'd be in agreement about just about everything if we were to sit down with a Psalm tone and and English text and decide what to do with it.

There are definite rules that apply to Latin psalm pointing. One can look them up anywhere. There is no such guide for doing so in English, save, for example, what Mr. Ford has just presented us with. If there are others, please fill me in.

On a practical level, and that is my real concern from week to week, we are also having deal with setting the ridiculously short antiphons from the Lectionary. How does one go about about applying five monosyllabic English words to one of the tones? Well, maybe you don't. Maybe you compose a melody in the mode. MAybe you just compose something else and come up with some structure for the verses. But I think if you can compose something that is derived from a specific Psalm tone - give it a meaningful and strong beginning, perhaps a reference to the mediant cadence or flex, a clear center on a reciting note, you will come up with something that will slip nicely in between a stricter application of the English verses set to the closest possible approximation of the Gregorian tones (I'm a renegade, what can I say...) People have got to sing these things, or your pastor will say you are not doing your job. If the antiphon contains elements of the sung verses, especially the final cadence, you can be sure they will nail it every time. And in time, they will have heard strict applications of the different tones - and don't even know it. They think they are just singing things that are easy to sing. What an education.

Thank you, to both of the Doctors Ford.

"But surely, it's better to use newly-formulated psalmtones, that capture the spirit of the Gregorian models, than distort the Latin tones to fit the vernacular." [RR]

What does that really mean? Aren't you just twisting words around a bit? Are you saying that a totally new set of tones be devised that has nothing at all to do with the Latin tones? Where should they come from? The Flintstones theme song?

We're all working toward the same end here. And to the point about psalmists being created equally: well, they're just not. But you've got to work with what you've got.

This is like the fascinating I have ever seen, because here we have all these experts frankly sharing their thoughts!

Magnificent!

Thank you, Jeffrey and Aristotle, for making all this possible!

May God be praised.

Most of what I would have added to this discussion has already been said above. However, I would like to point out one thing:

With regards to the Psalm tones as given in the Vatican Edition, there are different ways of performing those, depending on the last accent. I treat this in the Introduction to the NOVA ORGANI HARMONIA (which is available for free download). In general, the French only elongate the last syllable (e.g. in mode 2 or mode 8) whereas the Germans will elogate both, if the accent is on the penultimate. Both ways are allowed by the Vatican Rules for Interpretation. And this DEFINITELY affects the English rendition.

"What does that really mean? Aren't you just twisting words around a bit? Are you saying that a totally new set of tones be devised that has nothing at all to do with the Latin tones? Where should they come from? The Flintstones theme song?" [AOZ]

I may be twisting words, but I think I said explicitly that tones for the English could be derived from the Latin tones (to great advantage). Let's just be careful what we call them. Gregorian psalmtones sung in Latin require only the most subtle alterations to fit a given line (at least as I practice them). The frequency with which such alterations are necessary when setting the English (single syllable accents at the ends of lines, proximate accents in the formulas, etc.) turn those subtleties into something too coarse and vulgar to be called Gregorian, in my mind anyway. I'm pretty sure this is more than just a matter of semantics.

As for the Flintstones...

RR - What a magnificent rendering of a tone that predates mere Gregorian Chant by some 50,000 years.

Cave Cantum Cavernarum.

You are truly a scary man with way too much time on your hands!

Thank you, Richard. I love it! And it would work even better in Anglican Chant (and then some one could chant the weather forecast using it!).

I use the tone VI Alleluia at the Noon Mass every weekday. I have heard tone VIII used with the tone VI Antiphon, and I don't like that. I only use tone VI because it bears such a resemblance to the melody of the Alleluia. And I do make various adjustments to the verse melody, as described above. I would like to point out that, unlike Anglican chant, the Gregorian tones have different cadence patterns in each tone. So, being able to use a variety of all 8 tones (9 if you include Perigrinus) would be one goal to shoot for. But people would need to learn some of the Gregorian Alleluias to go along with the tones for the verses.

That would be good also.

We know Richard is funning, but on what grounds could one stop such as setting from being sung at the Mass?

It's tuneful, many people already know it, and it's chipper. Just the thing for grey Sunday mornings! Plus, it "sacralizes" pagan culture! What's not to like?

Even if it weren't still in syndication, you can imagine that a flood of secular melody into church culture would have the effect of demolishing any distinction between sacred and profane. We've seen such a demolition every Sunday for the past forty years.

Is this what the Church wanted, or wants? No. Why? Because it does not help to sanctify the faithful. It puts the church permanently on the defensive. It makes the church say, "we have no distinctive culture of our own." The church accepts every offering, and proposes nothing.

If people are okay with this, then there should be no objection to hiring a "death metal" band to play, say, a Tenebrae service.

At that point, the demolition of Roman Catholic culture will be complete, since it will have demonstrated zero willingness even to defend its sanctuary.

"...there should be no objection to hiring a "death metal" band to play, say, a Tenebrae service."

Well, maybe, but that would be more an issue of performance style and aesthetics. Even I would be hard pressed to transform death metal into psalmtone, only because death metal, which has such a good (tire iron against the cranium) beat, has next to nothing in the way of melodic material. You dead heads, correct me if I'm wrong.

In the spirit of "There's One in Every Crowd"...where's the bridge?

Next thing you know we'll have hymns to the tune of The Brady Bunch and Gilligan's Island.

RR - If I may make so bold, I would suggest the following modification to the third verse.

"I would suggest the following modification..."

Oh yes, that makes it infinitely more unsingable... which is saying something. OCP won't touch it now.

Fred, being pre-covenant, is bound to his conscience and the natural law, rather than to particular Catholic... er... dogma. Which means he has a better shot at heaven than the likes of me.

chonak... this is EXACTLY how the beer hall tunes of yesteryear get into our hymnals! Now, Stop it!!!!

I don't know about the 9th century signs, but here's some other newly discovered material. This was uncovered in the 1960s (but suppressed by Bugnini) in an alpine monastery somewhere near the Swiss/Austrian border. Seems to be a contemporary of the prehistoric tone. Notice the mnemonic - suggests frequent and varied use.

Now that tone is stuck in my head! One can easily see how this is passed on for so many hundreds of years.

We don't need to necessarily reinvent the wheel. We can look into other wheels already in use.

I had the great privilege of attending the Investiture Ceremony of the Sovereign Order of Orthodox Knights Hospitaller of St. John of Jerusalem this past Sunday. It was also my first visit to NYC. The liturgy was at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral on East 2nd Street. Most of the chanting was in English, and VERY different from anything Roman or Anglican! The verse was not in speech rhythm, but rather in 1/8 notes (maybe even 1/16 notes, depending on your perspective). Then each cadence slowed down to 1/4 and 1/2 notes. It was in harmony. It caught me by surprise (I had only been to Byzantine Rites Liturgies) but I got used to it quickly.

Bottom line: there's more than one way to chant.