Urbs beata Jerusalem - plainsong (identifying plainsong)
  • gcasa
    Posts: 17
    Hello,
    I am arranging the vespers for our cathedral and I need this tune: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1JUUYhtCkw
    I can`t find it online so maybe someone can point me to it (preference for modern notation) or upload it. Thx.
  • awilliamsawilliams
    Posts: 101
    Here it is in english.image
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,000
    I do like the organ accompaniment very much!

    A square note notation of the tune (without text) can be found here.
  • awilliamsawilliams
    Posts: 101
    Do we know the genesis of this tune? It is not the tune that is used in the Liber Hymnarius. I cannot find it anywhere in Latin. Perhaps Westminster took a familiar English tune and set the latin lyrics to it?

    There is an accompaniment in the New English Hymnal.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,199
    The tune also known as URBS BEATA is from a very old (Sarum) plainsong from the 7th or 8th century. The version found in The Hymnal 1916, 1940, 1982 is based on the 13th century Nevers Manuscript. Westminster simply used the plainsong tune that has been associated with the text for centuries.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    very old (Sarum) plainsong from the 7th or 8th century.

    I never miss an opportunity to sing Sarum's praises, but wonder if 7th or 8th century might be somewhat premature for Sarum? (Thanks just the same, Chuck!)

    The tune in question is the only one from any source that I have ever encountered with Urbs beata.

    About Liber Hymnarius, I think that most of us are aware that this book does not pair numerous hymns with their original, or traditional, or most familiar tunes. Some may have solid academic basis, but, I think, not all: so Liber Hymnarius is not, of itself, necessarily reliable as a source for historic text-tune relationships.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • awilliamsawilliams
    Posts: 101
    The melody in the Liber Hymnarius is the same on the Liber Usualis and the Antiphonale Romanum. Either way, I find both melodies pleasing.

    It is interesting to see that Westminster seems to take the time to do their own scholarship rather than using the books which are currently available. I also find it encouraging to see more groups chanting solemn vespers in the Ordinary Form. Most of the recordings you find of chanted Vespers (including those made by Westminster) always use the old office.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,199
    I think the 13th century version is a Sarum adaptation of whatever the original melody was. You're quite right that 7th-8th century would not be Sarum.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,199
    My Liber Usualis (as well as my Antiphonale) does not have Urbs beata Jerusalem (which is trochaic, 87.87.87); instead, it has the iambic replacement Caelestis urbs Jerusalem to a completely different melody. The rhythmic structure is completely different, of course. And the Liber Hymnarius has the text as Urbs Jerusalem beata with still a different melody (trochaic). Am I missing something?
  • Abbot Jonathan CoelAbbot Jonathan Coel
    Posts: 167
    And let's not forget that great Anglican anthem by Sir Edward Bairstow on this same text and tune.
    Thanked by 3awilliams CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn
  • awilliamsawilliams
    Posts: 101
    @CHGiffen

    Huh. You are right on the Liber Usualis. Someone had sent me a rehearsal file of Urbs beata this week (it is the vespers hymn Monday) and the file is marked with a page number from the Liber Usualis. However, I checked my own copy and its not in there. Always good to check your sources.

    On the other hand it is on page 702-4 of the modern Antiphonale

    It should be noted that the text is rendered "Urbs Jerusalem beata" in the OP's recording.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,790
    The 'Urbs Jerusalem beata' / 'Urbs beata Jerusalem' is the Hymn for Vespers and Matins a continuation of this hymn the 'Angularis fundamentum' provides the Lauds Hymn, these Hymns are of course used for the Dedication...

    Sadly Urban VIII and his under-employed Latin Masters revised these ancient hymns ( 6th/7th c.) in 1632 to give the modern versions, 'Coelestis urbs Jerusalem', and the 'Alto ex Olympi vertices'. the various authorities on Hymns describe the change in none to glowing terms. Also it should be noted that the re-writing of the Hymns, to suit the sensibilities of the the Latin Masters! changed the meter from Trochaic tetrameter to 6 lined verses of Iambic dimeter.

    As the modern versions of these hymns (Urban VIII) will be found in the Liber / Roman Antiphonal the melodies of course will not be suitable for the ancient Hymns.

    The Global chant database is not very helpful with melodies for this Hymn only giving the Mode 4 melody found on page 694 of the Antiphonale Monasticum (download available from CCW) This same melody is also found in the Liber Responsoralis, and the 1912 Roman Antiphonal (in the Hymni Antiqui section). The Dominicans use a different melody mode 2, this is a delightful melody found on page 18* of the Dominican Antiphonal also found here, http://hymnarium.org/melodies/#melody54

    Another Mode 4 melody can be found in the Vesperarum Liber, pg 768. http://www.op.org.au/texts/vesperarumfruhwirth1900.pdf

    A Cantus search for this Hymn http://cantusdatabase.org/id/008405 will find many manuscripts with this hymn.

    P.S. It is sad that the Latin Masters were not employed with their red ink marking the scripts of errant school boys...

    P.P.S. At least one writer on ancient hymns describes the Latin Masters as Jesuits, from the tone of the sentence the writer appears to be using the term Jesuit as an insult!
    Thanked by 3M. Jackson Osborn MichaelDickson CHGiffen
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    tomjaw, nearly every time I read a post of yours it leads to 2-3 hours (would be 20-30 if I had the time) of research and always ends with many valuable lessons learned. Thank you.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen M. Jackson Osborn tomjaw eft94530
  • MichaelDickson
    Posts: 419
    .
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,367
    One must remember the hymns are the first casulty of the destruction of the Roman Rite. The canons of St. Peter’s Basilica refused to adopt them; the Lateran may have refused as well. Both had also preserved a form of the office that pre-dates the curial office imposed on all of Rome by Innocent III.
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 392
    "Both had also preserved a form of the office that pre-dates the curial office imposed on all of Rome by Innocent III."

    In the 18th century the St. Peter's Basilica already used a regular Breviarium Romanum, with only the older psalter translation ("Psalterium Romanum", Jerome's first revision) preserved and a proper calendar. See https://books.google.cz/books?id=vMcHAAAAQAAJ

    So either this claim is false, or the canons later adopted a greater part of the Tridentine breviary.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,367
    At least through the Middle Ages the schema of the office differed. I don't know at what point the BR was largely adopted, but they never used the revised hymns, and I suspect the shift to the BR was done somewhat involuntarily...
Add a Comment