Weird divergence … “Qui manducat” communion
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Compare this chant from the Liber Usualis:
    http://www.christusrex.org/www2/cantgreg/partituras/co_qui_manducat.gif

    … with the one from the Gregorian Missal and Graduale Romanum:
    http://media.musicasacra.com/books/gregorianmissal-eng.pdf

    There are notable differences between the two.

    I have read people assert before that nothing in the chant notation changed from the 1908 Solesmes edition through the 1974 Graduale. This seems to illustrate that that’s not always true … ?

    It also seems to imply that we aren’t ultimately safe “mixing and matching” pre-V2 and post-V2 Solesmes resources … which kind of undercuts a central assumption that a lot of chant proper collections seem to make … ?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    At least in my graduale romanum ('74), it's the same as the Liber.
    Thanked by 1lagunaredbob
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    In fact, they all seem to match, unless I'm missing something obvious (which is very possible). What differences did you see?

    Liber:
    image

    GM (1990):
    image


    GR (1974):
    image
    qui man gm.JPG
    513 x 408 - 38K
    qui man gr.JPG
    330 x 224 - 27K
  • Arthur Connick
    Posts: 496
    The only difference I see is that the Gregorian Missal has the asterisk at the first half bar instead of after "mandúcat", and the dot on "-cat" was dropped. The 1974 Graduale has the same. Many of the chants in the 1974 Graduale have the incipit lengthened in this fashion. The only proper chant I'm aware of that is truly changed is the Graduale Domine refugium for the 21st Sunday after Pentecost/27th Sunday in Ordinary Time.
    Thanked by 2Ben CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,216
    Felipe writes:
    It also seems to imply that we aren’t ultimately safe “mixing and matching” pre-V2 and post-V2 Solesmes resources … which kind of undercuts a central assumption that a lot of chant proper collections seem to make … ?


    In the Winter 2008 Sacred Music, Jeff Ostrowski presents an article about chant notation in the Vatican Graduale 1908 and states that various editions printed by other publishers differed in their rhythmic markings.

    The Graduale from the Holy See represented rhythmic nuance by -- of all things! -- the *spacing* between notes. This seemed an impractical method of notation at the time, and the publishers authorized to print the book were allowed to offer their own improvements on it. They were required to preserve the notes and their spacing, but were free to add their own rhythmic markings.

    Since the markings were optional then, and variation was not a problem then, it seems sensible to regard variations between editions as Not A Problem now, including for EF Masses.

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    If the discrepancies were merely asterisks that would be one thing, but if there are differences in dots (which most folks seem to interpret as rhythmically significant) that will require a longer rehearsal with more talking.

    Every little bit counts …
  • Andris Amolins
    Posts: 154
    the asterisk at the first half bar instead of after "mandúcat", and the dot on "-cat" was dropped

    Unless the manuscripts had episema (I haven't GT at hand), the dot on "-cat" in LU seems to be the rhythmic consequence of the asterisk. The latter being removed in GR1974, the former, too, had to go.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
Add a Comment