Dixit Dominus: whither Liber Usualis pointING?
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    For mode 1, Liber Usualis has on p128:

    … Dóminus ex Sion

    … but:

    … implébit ruinas

    What is the rationale for which syllable gets the accented tone (cf. p113)? Until very recently I had labored under the impression that the accents on the tone simply followed the accents in the text.
  • 32ContraBombarde32ContraBombarde
    Posts: 138
    To move to the TE on the primary accent in Dominus would mean moving too early, leaving three beats between movement in the mediant. I can't cite a rule off the top of my head, but you just don't see more than two beats midst the mediant, as in the implebit ruinas. And, in fact, "nus" of Dominus does receive a secondary accent, with "mi" being the weakest of the syllables. So it would be the logical choice.

    This happens frequently in the Tonus Epistolae, where in order to avoid long recitations during a metrum or full stop, a secondary word accent is preferred to a primary accent. Again, I can't cite a specific rule, but it's generally accepted that you should count back no more than three syllables to find the accent (meaning no more than two recited syllables in between chosen accents).

    For example, if an Epistle is to have a metrum at "sci-en-ti-am san-cto-rum", the second accent of the metrum is obviously placed on "cto" of sanctorum, but if we go all the way back to the primary accent of scientiam, we're counting back four syllables, which is too many. Instead, we favor the secondary accent, "am," giving us our metrum accents "sci-en-ti-am san-cto-rum," where the italicized syllable indicates the minor third drop to FA immediately preceding the accent which returns to DO.

    That wasn't particularly clear, sorry. But hopefully you get the gist.
  • Andris Amolins
    Posts: 154
    Generally, the one-accent cadence takes account of the fact that Latin words have mainly accent on the penultimate syllable. The musical accent is then placed accordingly. In many words, the accent falls on the antepenultimate syllable. Therefore, one 'additional' unaccented note is allowed. Thus, a one-accent cadence forms either a trochaic (^-) or a iambic (^--) foot.

    The two-accent cadence just forms two such feet: ^-^-, ^-^--, ^--^-, or ^--^--. Fairly often the last word of the line has 2 or 3 syllables and the second last word has at least as much. So the two last words become musically accented, too. "Implebit ruinas" would be an example.

    If the last word has 4 or more syllables it gets 2 accents. If the last or second last word is monosyllabic a counterintuitive pattern of accents arises, like in "Dominus ex Sion."

    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Ah, ok, so the open-note neume indicates “0 or 1”, rather than “0 or more”. That makes sense.

    I actually find “DómiNUS ex SIon” to be jarring; to my ear there’s more sense in considering “ex” to have a small accent itself as a “pickup” to “Si-on”.

    By what metric do we judge that there would be “too many” unaccented syllables between primary accents to point the text as it otherwise might? Maybe this is from my having been around Anglican chant as much as I have, but I am much more bothered by a false musical accent than by “too many” intermediary syllables between changed notes.

    I’m on the fence here, but I’d really like to point to some diversity of tradition that justifies simply following the text accent and interpreting the open-note neumes as indicating an indeterminate number of syllables.
  • JonathanKKJonathanKK
    Posts: 542
    In the pre-"Vatican Edition" books from c. 1895, pointing does seem to have been more flexible, as you are wishing was the case; see for example these couple of pages from a Liber Antiphonarius pro Vesperis et Completorio (1891), which is representative of the Solesmes books of this short era.

    On the other hand, with the advent of the authoritative Vatican Edition, thinking on this had evidently come to a different conclusion, as you may see by consulting p. 4*-5* of the Antiphonale Romanum (1912), which cover the same material as the previous example, but using the newer paradigm.

    My thinking on this is, "Thank goodness we got this figured out."

    That is, the process of pointing a Latin text with the system enshrined in all the post-"Vatican Edition" books is entirely predictable and regular, and one of the glories of our chant.

    The pointing of an English text, on the other hand, is (for better or worse) still a matter on which there are differing opinions, systems, etc.

    Thus, for Latin chant, stick to the proper system as found in the Vatican Edition, please?

    * * *

    Do consider, however, that with Gregorian chant, the "textual accent" and the "melodic accent" (however you call them) are considered to independent of each other; it shouldn't be surprising therefore that you sometimes have to pronounce the textual accents:

    in splendóribus sanctórum:

    while singing the melodic accents as:

    in splendóribus sanctórum:

    If you do it right (and de-emphasize "-bus"), it is really not that bad.

    And anyhow, at the end of the day, this is what happens with strophic hymns no matter what you do: you are going to have to drape your word accents carefully over the unchanging framework of the melody every single time.

    Vale in Domino,
    Jonathan
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Andris Amolins Aristotle Esguerra
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    It is a simple principle: in Latin, when there are more than two syllables between accents, a secondary accent is assumed, as on "-nus" of Dominus ex Sion
    Thanked by 1JonathanKK
Add a Comment