Ah, thank you very much.

Yes, I was indeed assuming that three-note neums were always given three counts. That makes much more sense now.

Thanks and God Bless!

I wonder if it is possible to answer a specific chant performance related question on this forum without sniping from naysayers.

Seemingly prudent advice, Incantu - but for one stumbling block on the way to truly current scholarship, namely, that while it may be profitable for some to learn the markings to which you refer, it is likely that they will remain in that, um, mode, and never venture into the world opened up by the scholarship that has revealed the markings to which you refer to be rather an eye-closer than an eye-opener. After all, 'the way I learned it' all to often becomes the only way to do it simply because 'I couldn't possibly have learned it wrong'. We have learned a lot, quite a lot, about chant in the last seventy-five and more years. This presents those who have dedicated their lives to yet another passing method of chant interpretation with difficult realities.

Let me hasten to add that I am not 'panning' the so-called Solesmes method, which, so Fr Columba asserts, is not and never has been followed at Solesmes. I think that one of the wonders that we musicians have in our age is precisely that, because of the documents and manuscripts available to us, we can avail ourselves of all manner of fairly accurate performances of chant and other music from almost any historical period. And, yes, before someone pounces, I realise that we cannot have an objectively 'authentic' performance (even of today's music), only one greatly informed by the scholarship available to us. This means for me, that I really do appreciate the 'Solesmes method' as an historical recreation of early XXth century chant - not as anywhere near the final word in chant scholarship. With this in mind, it has all the validity of Medicean chant, of Pleinchant musicale, of early Renaissance chant, or any other chant brought to life by informed scholarship. And, who can say: it's quite possible (but, I don't think, likely) that future generations will consider our semiological conclusions to have been mere historical fads. What is more likely is that they will follow through with semiology and improve immensely on its fruits.

I hadn't thought to carry on so about this because it goes far beyond what CradleRevert was attempting to ascertain. I certainly mean no disparagement of his efforts or chant proclivities; but, perhaps this can be a useful conversation in which, respectful of one another, we can share what is known about a subject dear to all of us.

It seems that I've created a monster.

M. Jackson Osborn, being a chant novice (at best), I've never been aware that there were opposing views regarding use of the ictus. If you can direct me to any online resources critiquing the modern method of chant rhythm, I'd certainly be interested in reading more about it, if nothing else than for my own curiosity.

You have neither created nor awakened a monster. It happens in our forum conversations that 'topics' will often take turns not envisioned by their originators. This is neither a negative judgement on the 'originators' nor the 'turners', but is a dynamic that may (or may not) result in enlightening (or enjoyable) conversational developments. It's just what sometimes happens in normal conversation, isn't it?

As for your current interests - I think that if you are really moved by well done so-called Solesmes chant that you should follow through and learn what you can from it. As I intimated above, there are quite a number, historically, of ways of interpreting chant, and the 'Solesmes method' is just one of these. It is chant as it was understood by many (not by any means everyone) in the early XXth century. Modern scholarship has led us, particularly with the study of the earliest recorded notation, to some more probable performance practices which, at least, seem more closely to approximate those that were likely in chant's nascent times.

As history unfolded, chant performance changed radically in the late middle ages, had its periods of 'degeneracy' in the Renaissance and Baroque eras, and had what was meant to be a restoration at the hands of XIXth century monks at Solesmes. Their conclusions led indirectly (with much goading by the American heiress-educator, Justine Ward) to what is now known as the 'Solesmes method'. This really is not The Solesmes Method, for it isn't and never was practiced at Solesmes, nor did it receive anything near universal approbation from elements in the Church, nor, certainly, from the scholarly community.

But, if you have heard well done 'Solesmes method' chant that really speaks to you, by all means study it. Just don't make the mistake that many do in regarding it as graven in stone and dropped from a cloud. It is one of a number of respectable, but dated, ways of performing the chant which we all love. Someone else might be quite 'enchanted' by the likely performance of chant in the Renaissance or some other period. All these should be preserved, for we are blessed to keep our entire heritage alive. At the same time, we are blessed by the fruits of continuing scholarship into chant's origins.

If you are interested in looking further afield, by all means think about attending Fr Columba Kelly's seminar at St Meinrad's archabbey next summer. Also, St Basil's School of Gregorian Chant, of which I am the choirmaster and lecturer in chant studies, will be having a week long Winter Chant Conference featuring Fr Columba in Santa Fe the first week of next February. Fr Columba is one of the world's pre-emminent scholars of Gregorian chant, and knows well all the scholar-monks of Solesmes who have evolved in their understanding of chant since the 'not-Solesmes-method' had its heyday.

If some of my colleagues who are champions of the 'not-Solesmes-method' wish to weigh in here, please do so. I shant engage in further argumentation. (But I may offer further information.)

Neither created, awakened, nor itchy - not even a monster at all.

Ha! How about montre?
(I guess a 'monstre' would be a very loud and poorly voiced montre???)

There have been two or three requests for suggestions of where to look online for a beginners summary of these problems of interpretation. As no one has responded, can we take it there the is nowhere better to start than Wikipedia?

There have been two or three requests for suggestions of where to look online for a beginners summary of these problems of interpretation. As no one has responded, can we take it there the is nowhere better to start than Wikipedia?

There is a quite good booklet from Fr. Columba on the Meinrad website (plus a bunch of other things worth looking at!). But the trick with all of this is to find a teacher - either go to Fr. Columba's workshop, or a Colloquium - there are a few Semiologists and people with Semiological influences, even while retaining the basics of "Solesmes" style, on the faculty: Notably Jeffrey Morse, Edward Schaeffer, Charles Cole and Wilko Brouwers. Also, pick up the recordings with Dr. Mary Berry and the Community of Jesus from Paraclete Press - definitely worth the investment!

Fr Columba saw this conversation and sent me his translation of Dom Saulnier's explanation of why the ictus and mora vocis have been abandoned at Solesmes. I present this for what it is worth to any interested parties, and do so, as I promised above, without further argumentation. Some of you, no doubt, are familiar already with these revelations -

Dom Saulnier writes:

The Solesmes Method as Taught by the Monks of Solesmes

Since the 2005 edition of the Antiphonale Monasticum, the Solesmes monks have abandoned the use of both the vertical episema used for the ictus, and the dot for the Mora Vocis, in their publications of Gregorian chant. They state in the Praenotanda, footnote 31, that: The expression 'rhythmic signs' as attributed to the episemas and the mora point, is gravely ambiguous: It seems to signify that these signs indicate the rhythm. However, these signs do not do so. The fundamental rhythm of Gregorian chant is given by the declamation of the text and the movement of the melody. the signs added to the mediaeval neumes do not indicate the rhythm but rather the tiny nuances, as well as the vocal ornaments, accessible only to well trained specialists.

One has developed the habit of calling 'rhythmic signs' the three signs added to the Solesmes edition of the books of chant of the 20th century: the mora point, the vertical episema and the horizontal episema.

These three signs have been abandoned in our editions for the following reasons.

The mora point and the vertical episema do not correspond to anything given in the traditional Gregorian chants. They do not appear in any mediaeval manuscript. They were only introduced in the Solesmes editions for the purpose of promoting a particular rhythmic theory for Gregorian chant (that of the Nombre musical gregorien), which has been proved to be obsolete for some time now. Moreover, these signs reveal a contradiction with the basic principles for reading the mediaeval neumes. More precisely, this rhythmic theory, to the degree that it inflicts a rhythmic distortion on the words and the phrases that are sung, appears in contradiction to the basic principles of liturgical composition, which rest on a foundation that is at the service of the sacred text.

The horizontal episema only appears in two or three mediaeval manuscripts of the Divine Office among the hundreds of documents that we have studied. It is not a rhythmic sign, a sign that would inform the singer about rhythmic elements. It only precisions - and that in a very ambiguous fashion for a singer of the 20th century - a tiny nuance of the rhythm, one which musicians today called an agogic.

Most amateur choirs are incapable of producing these very subtle nuances, nuances that are reserved for expert soloists. The exaggerated interpretation that these amateur choirs give to these signs leads in the end to a deforming of the fundamental rhythm of these Gregorian pieces, even to the simple antiphons. It should be an interpretation that is based on the declamation of the text and the movement of the melody.

It is for this reason that we have chosen to renounce their use in conformity to the principle laid out by Dom Cardine at the end of the Preface to the Liber hymnarius:

'The priciples given here flow from the perfect correspondence of a sacred text to a Gregorian melody. It is for this reason that singers who show respect for the Latin diction, by that very fact already possess the greater part of what is required to execute well a Gregorian piece.'

(Thusly speaketh the real Solesmes Method!)

Dear Noel - (and with my genuine respect) -
It is wonderful when you and I agree, isn't it.
But we don't agree on this.
I have directed and taught chant for decades and have done so without any reference to a non-existent ictus and 'rhythmic signs' of an interpretative method strictly peculiar to a period within the XXth century that are not to be found in any original chant manuscripts.
I'm sure that you, likewise, have directed and taught chant for decades; and, if you find this method to be of 'invaluable help', then godspeed.

Fr Columba is right on that point. Anything that smacks of arcana is something that chant proponents should eschew, as it will only ensure that chant remaind stuck in a back eddy.

While MJO and I have enjoyed sparring, I's like to suggest that for the beginner, stuck in front of singers for whatever reason good or misguided, who has had the basic class in chironomy by Wilko...can make much progress by icti-ing to the the point that they can then leave all that behind, like the training wheels we all had on bicycles.

I have no doubt the MJO did not have training wheels on a bicycle, but rather kick-started a Harley and hit the road with aplomb. I can not imagine otherwise.

I'm convinced that everyone thinks the chant-system they learned first is the easiest to learn.

I learned chant from a semiology guy using a text based system and didn't encounter icti until years later... the first time someone started counting twos and threes I looked at them like they had three heads and wondered why they were making things so difficult.

I'm guessing that if someone learned "Old Solesmes" first, the thought of taking away their icti and making them look to the text to interpret the chant, they'd think "why are they making this so difficult?"

I've heard "Old Solesmes" styled chant groups that sounded lovely. Many of them sing chant at a slow pace that makes me cringe.

Most "New Solesmes" or semiological-based choirs sound lovely to me. I'm sure that to some who want to count twos and threes, the fast paced exciting chant of the semiologist sounds disturbing or scandalous.

 

A beginner asks a simple technical question and this is the result.
Can we stop being so d### dogmatic about out preferred chant interpretive school of thought?
I have absolutely no problem with Semiology, either on its own or as a tool to bring nuance to a more systemized method . I use it myself. There are however some people within the newer schools of thought which seem rather dogmatic and un-necessarily negative toward the “old Solesmes” method.
In the case of office antiphons and psalmody the “old Solesmes” is indeed overkill and un-necessary, but I have yet to meet someone who marks ictus in psalm tones.

“The Ictus does not exist” – that is entirely debatable. (Adam beat me to this with his hilarious illustration) When there are 27 notes on a single vowel I suppose not a single one is more stressed, accented, restful or energetic than the others?

“obsolete” – when the Semiological approach does not involve learning 3 ancient systems of notation and being fairly experienced (and somewhat knowledgeable) with reading the Latin language and understanding modal theory. Then the “old Solesmes” and other practical approaches will be obsolete.

Sorry if I’m ranty but I’m irritated because the person who started this is an ordinary singer who just asked a simple question.

Are some in this group failing to distinguish "ictus" meaning the sign, from "ictus" meaning the impulse or thesis within a series? The first does not exist in the ancient MSS, but the second cannot fail to exist unless the series is mechanically produced.

(The mind wants to introduce it when it isn't there... which is why I hear a clock saying tick-tock instead of tock-tick-tick or tick-tick.)

(Similarly, "umlaut" in Germanic languages is a vowel change that happens, whether it's marked with a diaeresis as in modern German, or a letter -e- as in mediaeval German, or by changing the spelling as in English. However the diaeresis gets called "umlaut" as well, by metonomy.)

Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity.
- G. B. Shaw (I believe)

and therefore gets some kind of an accent: ONE-two, ONE-two, ONE-two-three, etc.

That's why, when teaching chant conducting and singing, I talk about the word stress in French which turns one two three into one two three and they learn to think (and say) three two one, two one. Chant can bog down miserably when people think and sing | | | when they move forward thinking ==>. Orbis Factor 212121213213213213212121...

Singing in this manner gets a choir out of the Hard soft and Hard soft soft rut of modern music, which we are assailed with where ever we go.

This, like counting down from 100 when receiving anesthesia, throws the analytical thinking switch off and turns on the creative side of the brain.

Music which is moving forward leaves the end of lines with a ?. Is there more? Have we arrived? Modern music telegraphs from the first measure where you are and where you will be at the end...

Either that or I am at fault, trying to think and type BC. (Before Coffee)

A very fascinating discussion, and I'm poring over this and trying to get what I can from all the posts. All I know is that when I heard our chant instructor (a former Benedictine chant master) sing chant, it was so beautiful and graceful, with such movement and life, I begged him to teach me how to sing just like he did, and I remember him saying, "But, my dear, I'm just following the ictus marks." He showed me how to mark them, and our chanting took off from there. I don't think we could have made such rapid progress in chant without learning the so-called "Solesmes method", and from what I can see, our adults and children's schola pick it up easily and naturally.

My husband and I also took some lessons from a former monk who uses the Graduale Triplex, and, while I appreciate the increased sensitivity and artistic nature of it, from our perspective, it was not workable at the time since it appeared to require a great deal of preparation each week. When your schola is made up of volunteers and amateurs who live at long distances from each other and your practice time is limited, it seems to me that knowing the "Solesmes method" well is the most practical way to sing the G.R. propers every Sunday.

8 Supporters of the "Solesmes method" have come forward and bared it all to the public. Will you be the next to join in?

And I thought only ventriloquists put words in other people's mouths.

OK, here goes: I prefer the semiological school - there really is no single semiological method; but I also appreciate the 19th Cent./early 20th Cent. 'Liber Usualis' method, as well as the earlier Medicean method (to me they are both mensuralist).

That being said, I prefer historically informed Bach on period instruments; but I also (hang on tight) appreciate Stokowski's big orchestrations he played with Philadelphia.

I prefer Semiology, and I think it is 'better' in the same way that I feel historically informed performance of Baroque music is better; but I don't think that it's the only way. Sometimes a Cavaille-Coll is just as good as a Schnitger. YMMV

I learned the details of ictus marking in The Square Notes Workbook and from Dr. Marier's Gregorian Chant Master Class, so perhaps this method is more properly known as the "Ward Method." Whatever the proper name is for this method of singing chant, all I can tell you is that it has given us a tremendous boost and given us a way to make rhythmic sense of the chant.

My husband is a professional musician, a middle school band and jazz instructor, and could not make rhythmic sense of the propers until our priest friend, the former Benedictine chant master, showed us this method. That moment was truly revolutionary, and my husband was so relieved that it gave him a way to find a recognizable downbeat and use groups of "2's" and "3's", a concept he assimilated immediately. (As he often tells me and demonstrates on his saxophone, accelerated and slightly syncopated chant is very similar to jazz.)

Learning this method gave us almost instant facility and enthusiasm for what had been close to being drudgery before. To use an analogy: ante-Ward Method was like having to use a shovel to dig a path through 2 feet of snow. Post-Ward Method made clearing that path as effortless as having a commercial snowblower.

That's not to say we don't concede that using the markings in the Graduale Triplex is more complete and perhaps artistically superior from a musical perspective, but the practical aspects remain, namely, how much time and effort would it take to master it, and how much time and effort to teach it to everyone in your adult and children's scholas who currently use the Ward Method? For our Latin Mass music team, that would be the straw that broke the camel's back.