Ok. So, in all honesty... how does it look with the chant in the middle of the file?
(I was very happy that the LU happened to have this chant set up in a way that made it extremely easy to cut and paste, as opposed to the version on CCW.)

Wunderbar.
To CPDL shall it go.

Yes, I agree that something like that would look better.
Unfortunately, I've only used GABC once (fairly satisfactorily, but I really don't like the continuous alphabet - why can't it just use sol-fa syllables? =/), and I'm not comfortable setting that much chant using such a program.
If anyone else wants to set it, I'd be happy to include it in the pdf, instead.

I do wish Finale would decide to take their "remove stems" and "change note-heads" a tiny bit further to allow an actual chant-like input system to complete the look while still hearing the right notes (since enough finagling can make it look almost right, but of course has an awful audio output).

GABC code for the full Tract can be downloaded from this page on the Gregobase site:
http://gregobase.selapa.net/chant.php?id=372

Does anyone know where to find the chant sequence for Laudes Salvatori?
I didn't see it in the book @tomjaw referred me to last time.

Edit: I suppose I could just listen to some recordings and figure it out myself, but it must already be written out somewhere.

This (http://www.gsbernard.ch/60/618_01.html) is kind of neat, because it has scans of a manuscript, but it starts this sequence around half-way through, and so must be missing at least 1 page.

Finding Laudes Salvatori will require some work, since it is an Easter sequence attributed to Notker Balbulus but dropped from the liturgy in the reform after the Council of Trent; thus it is not in the well-known chant performing editions created in the 20th century.

I seek to know of more polyphonic settings for the condunctus, sequentia and prosa of the mass or processions. I like the choralis because it includes some, it is an amazing book though I have not actually heard it sung almos ever,

Could someone please tell me what the last word is in the audio of this:
https://play.spotify.com/album/7BNrGATRRxkZmilNb9pJyr
or this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvFNLf_4aMM (the word before the amen, of course)?

Honestly, it sounds like "donati" or "tonati," but the last written word of every version of the sequence that I've found is "Trinitati." I can't figure out what they're saying or why they're saying it.
The only other textual difference I found between those recordings and the Sarum is that the Sarum at one point says "Hostem devastans: et victor suis ...." while the recordings, Isaac, and the google book "The Liturgical Year: Paschal time" say "Mortem devastans, et victor suis..." - the latter of which seems to be correct, according to all translations I've found.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

(For anyone interested in the difference between the printed chant in the Sarum missal and the sung chant of the monks at the Monastery of St. Gall, see the attached pdf.)

I can't read the description, (though I found a fairly equivalent English version that doesn't say anything about that part of the text but I do wish I knew why there was such a variation.

According to this: http://cantus.sk/image/2047 the word looks to be "tonati," which I think is equivalent, even though it seems to be an Italian word, and not Latin.
The chant in this: http://cantus.sk/image/1895 more properly matches the chant I wrote out from listening to the St. Gall recording. Very interesting.

Now to decide which word to use. Are they praising the Trinity, or the Thunderer(s)?
Trinitati makes more sense to me. Any thoughts?

all the variations in the text will need to be altered to the Sarum

Edit* (^^so you know what I was referencing^^)

Well, that isn't necessarily true. As I mentioned the only other big and obvious difference (not that there maybe aren't others) was "Hostem" vs "Mortem" (which was "fixed" in both of the referenced recordings). But another book had mortem as well as having "Trinitati."
Perhaps whomever wrote the sequence up for that book was combining the best of both versions.? (the main exception being the "Salvatoris" instead of "Salvatori")

Well, that isn't necessarily true.

I was referring that we have the Sarum text that has been checked by the excellent research of the following (see here, http://hmcwordpress.mcmaster.ca/renwick/about/ )

As for any other versions... hmm we have the version given in the Analecta Hymnica, and then we have a variety of other versions. How typical are these other versions? can we ever know?
I do not know which local Missal Issac was writing for, did it have a common text or was the text unique to that Missal?
From my experience I would stick to the versions given by the Analecta or the Sarum-chant website. Of course you are working on Issac's work and will use his text, but for those lines that are to be sung in chant and do not appear in his works... Well ideally we need to find the local Missale / Graduale he was writing for.

Anyway our choir are practicing the Issac Communio for Lent III, which you have kindly produced. It is really beautiful, hopefully we will have a recording to post.

Does anyone know where to find scans of this online? I'd like to compare some of the word-placement, just to see if the "Ensemble Officium" moved things to their liking or if it was the person who "modernized" the notation for the CC II book that did it.

(It's amazing how significantly more (psychological?) work some of these take than others!)

The Constance gradual of course remains undiscovered, which hasn't prevented people describing it based on inferences from Isaac. What would be interesting is to see whether the polyphony tends to one or another textual tradition.

Feel free to have a look at/listen to this and offer any suggestions as to how to improve the score.
Thank you, all, again, for your input. This took a while to put together.
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Laudes_Salvatori_(Heinrich_Isaac)

@CCooze

I have just looked through the Laudes Salvatori Prose, very interesting I had not looked at the polyphony and though he had just set the sequence, rather than a prose with added text. I wonder how this worked Liturgically, I believe the Prose was sung after the Gospel, so was the Sequence text sung twice or did the Konstanz Graduale not have the sequence.

I other thing while looking through your most excellent piece of work...
Bar 50, why is there a missing piece of text (Nostra qui so let re-)
Bar 98 Cecos this is abbreviated text as found in manuscripts, written in full it should be Caecos (I notice in the polyphony you write the AE rather the abbreviation E) The following are also examples of this,
Bar 181 Marie: (Mariae:)
Bar 235 que (quae)
Bar 271 celis (caelis)

I will take this to Mass and show the choir...

@ CCooze

I should first say our Director of music was very interested!

Looking at the spelling used for the polyphony you have set I see that it uses the variant spelling of Caeli (Coeli) so to be consistent Bar 271 should really be coelis. I get used to always using the ae but some manuscripts and a very small number of more modern chant books use the oe for some words. Having set a few sequences I have become used to noticing the abbreviated text.
In Bar 50 (of your manuscript), according to the Analecta this is the text,

5. Joseph, Mariae,
Simeoni subditur;
Circumciditur
et legali
hostia
mundatur ut peccator,
Nostra qui solet
relaxare crimina.

This matches the meter of the previous verse / section...
4. Carne gloriam
deitatis occulens
Pannis tegitur
in praesaepi,
miserans
praecepti transgressorem,
Pulsum patria,
paradisi nudulum.

I understand that some manuscripts have bits of text that are omitted, but I do not think that this text is from an omitted section.

As for your other question,

I keep wondering exactly how/where it would have worked.
If used as a legitimate sequence/prosa,

A Sequence is a legitimate part of the proper of the Mass and has it's appropriate Liturgical position. (Various sequences have been used for various days and then omitted from the Liturgy the Laudes Salvatori is one of many...)

A Prose is another piece of music that is has an unofficial liturgical position after the Gospel (at least in my experience). It is not really part of the Proper of the Mass. In Switzerland it is common to sing a Hymn after the Gospel, this is usually (always in my experience) a translation of the Veni Sancte Spiritus, I presume that this is a remnant of the Prose that would have been sung in the past after the Gospel. This appears to have been a Germanic (central European) custom, I don't think it was ever common in England or the Southern part of Europe.

Looking at this I would class this piece as a Prose that would be sung after the Gospel rather than a Sequence sung before the Gospel, the additional text would not be in the spirit of a Proper Sequence. But I would not be surprised that this may have been sung as the Sequence, but unless we find a Konstanz Graduale or Missale of around that time to see if that sequence was Proper we will not know for sure.

I don't think this would have been sung after the Last Gospel.

Question, Isaac has set Sequences, say for All Saints, and he has set Prose is there a difference in classification in the original part books. This may be a clue as to the use of Laudes Salvatori.

N.B. The Laudes Salvatori has been used as a Sequence for Easter Sunday, Low Sunday or Feria II or IV of Easter Week, as far as I know we have no idea what position if any the Laudes Salvatori had in Konstanz.

(I never received a response from my priest as to whether or not we would be allowed to use it

I quite agree that the celebrant of the Mass should be asked...(But he may not understand the question!) My understanding is that the choir should sing the text as found in the Graduale, but this is all very well when singing the chant as found therein. BUT with polyphony...it is not just the text but repeats... which could be seen as additions to the text.
My view is that as long as the choir or at least one part thereof are singing the complete text as found in the Graduale, this is fine... But I do think that some people may think of the extra section of text to be a Trope, that may be banned? in the EF at least in the Kyrie... It would of course be allowed in the Sarum version of the Roman Rite! If you do this will someone complain? I know we could sing this and no one would complain at our church but then we can sing Polyphonic Credo with only compliments coming back from the congregation.

I understand Prose and sequence to be interchangible, through my teacher Richard Crocker defines (in New Grove) the first as "a text for a sequence". I admit I'm further confused about the context of this discussion, which I imagined to be use in the current OF & EF rites, where all but the big four sequences would be used as 'motets' rather than 'propers'. Corinne, are you operating under some pre-tridentine indult? Tomjaw, should I be learning about a post-gospel chant tradition I've been unaware of?

Under what circumstances do you envision using Laudes salvatori as a 'legitimate sequence'?

I understand Prose and sequence to be interchangible

While I agree that a Sequence is the same type of music as a Prose and can be seen as interchangeable terms, but I see a difference as the Sequence has a Liturgical position while a prose does not. The books I have looked at are clear as to what is a prose and what is (was) a Sequence.

As for when the Prose was sung, well I have read in a number of places (sorry no references possibly The Liturgical Year, Gueranger) that some places sang a Prose after the Gospel (before the Sermon and so not really part of the Mass). So not really a tradition more an aberration (such as the singing of Hymns instead of Propers).

I admit I'm further confused about the context of this discussion, which I imagined to be use in the current OF & EF rites, where all but the big four sequences would be used as 'motets' rather than 'propers'.

My view of the context was whether it would count Liturgically as a Sequence or that it would be a used as a Prose.
As for whether the Laudes Salvatori could be used as part of the current EF, well it appears in the Sarum Missal so could be used by anyone using that Missal. Also as far as I know there is no index of the local calendars used across Europe, and no complete collection of the Proper texts.
While the big 4 Sequences can be used anywhere, other Sequences are also part of the EF, such as the 2 Benedictine, 2? Dominican, 5 or 6 Franciscan, at least 3 other Sequences I can think of... Some Sequences such as that for Our Lady of Mercy are also still used in the NO. Do we know that no local Propers use the Laudes Salvatori?

I quite agree that the main use for most if not all of us, of the Isaac "Prose" Laudes Salvatori will be as a Motet.

The chant itself, though, could maybe be used at the place of a sequence.

If your celebrant agrees, more power to you! I don't understand your distinction between chanted Laudes and Isaac's Laudes though, nor does reassigning it to Domenica in albis seem strictly correct: the later has its own sequence Hec est sancta solemnitas solemnitatum, and Laudes salvatori is assigned to Easter Sunday by scores of (old) mss. as well as Isaac himself.

So, here's where I came to the conclusion that by "Easter" it could easily mean the Easter Season, and not the literal day, and wasn't simply "reassigning" it for my own satisfaction (technically, I did put Isaac's Laudes Salvatori both on Easter and Easter 2 in CPDL, anyway):

-- The first thing that made me think that it might be used in the Easter season, and not necessarily ON Easter (regardless of its being in the middle of his Easter music) was the parenthetical "sequitur tempore pascali" (emphasis mine)- which I (possibly mis-)understood as meaning "in the Easter Season."

-- "The miraculous is inextricably interwoven with the whole life of Christ No wonder then that it was adopted in all the three English Missals on the Sunday after Easter in the Sarum and the Hereford and on the Monday in Easter Week in the York" (this includes my use of the Sarum missal, itself)

-- The very first place I found the full sequence when I started researching it:
It says "Tuesday, Fourth Week after Easter" - from the Book "The Liturgical Year: Paschal time, by Dom Prosper Guéranger

Thank you both for the explanations. There is a pattern to the cantus list, in which all mss. in Austrian, German and French libraries specify Easter Sunday while those in British and some Dutch libraries say something along the lines of "In die pasche et in octava". Does Analecta Hymnica support/refute that analysis? It's also interesting to see so many different assignments of 'VPL'.

It hadn't occurred to me that Choralis constantinus would contain 'seasonal music' besides the Asperges, but you have got me wondering about the rubric "Prosa sequitur tempore pascali" in the 1555 print (vol. 2). The eastertide Sundays in vol. 1 have no sequences of their own… It's also puzzling that Hans Buchner set Victimae but not Laudes. Maybe Easter Sunday at Constance had 'options'!

I'm beginning to see that "the chant itself" means "any setting of the sequence itself". In my mind, though, the identification of Isaac's musical quotes by underlay in the posthumous print doesn't mean that those words necessarily must be the ones sung.

Does anyone know when and why (or even who decided) "cum venerit" became "dum venerit" in the Communio for the 4th Sunday after Easter?
Both the Latin Vulgate and the Nova Vulgata say "cum venerit" (as does Isaac and the 1903 LU, and many propers found online.

So, could it in any way be wrong to leave it as written, rather than changing the word in the transcription?

I sort of figure that it's something the director could just say to change if they really want to.
It could also start long, interesting debates (and google searches) if the right people were involved in the conversation at the time of its choosing/rehearsal. =)

The 1910 L.U. has Dum venerit, but my earlier Graduale have Cum venerit, I see that the text in the Missale Romanum is Cum... But there are well known differences in the text between the G.R. and the M.R.

I too would say leave it, but add an explanation that the G.R. text is different.

We sang the Sicut Cervus / Sitivit Anima mea, Palestrina at the Vigil and no one noticed the slight difference in the text to the G.R., and we had more than enough pedants in our congregation!

So another Issac Proper is in the works, splendid, they will be very usefull next year,
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/13573/heinrich-isaac-c.1450-26th-march-1517