Isaac's Choralis Constantinus
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    I've been looking at Palm Sunday.

    What is the likelihood that the middle verses of the tract for Palm Sunday were simply lost? He has (if I remember correctly) the full tract for the 1st Sunday of Lent, which has pretty much the same number of verses, and over 550 (modern) "measures."

    It doesn't look like the tract was shorter or anything like that at any point in history, so was he just tired and felt like letting those verses be chanted, leaving the polyphony at just under 225 measures (perhaps because this Mass and its rites is already extremely long)?
    For that matter, would one just point the schola to the Gregorian/psalm-tone (for timeliness?) verses and then put the polyphony back in when it gets up to the correct verse? The beginning of the "Qui timetis" verse does perfectly reflect the chant for that verse, after all.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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.)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,873
    I'd say it looks pretty good!!
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Wunderbar.
    To CPDL shall it go.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    We have just discussed this Tract and agree that the missing verses should be chant.

    I do wonder if it would be better to re-set the chant to full width rather than use scans. It should not be too difficult to set it using this http://bbloomf.github.io/jgabc/propers.html
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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).
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    @CCooze
    With the GABC the code for the Tract is already set in full, what will need to be done is to extract the code for the verses you need and run it through the online program to produce a .pdf

    It should also be easy to produce it in psalm tone format.

    Anyway I will have a go and post the .pdf here. I have to go to work now but hope to do this later.

    N.B. I usually typeset chant using the Caeciliae font as it gives me more control over the final layout.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,865
    GABC code for the full Tract can be downloaded from this page on the Gregobase site:
    http://gregobase.selapa.net/chant.php?id=372
    Thanked by 1CCooze
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Ok, so I used the provided links to capture just the part I needed. Then I printed it out. I also printed out the pages from my original pdf with the LU scans.

    Honestly, I like the look of the LU print-out better. I know it looks a little strange in the midst of the pdf, but I really think that print out looks better than the GABC.

    image

    To each his own. Here's the GABC file if you actually prefer it once you've printed both.
    22K
    2448 x 2448 - 1M
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,865
    The engravings of the Solesmes books set a standard which Gregorio's developers aspire to match.

    Some of the overall impression comes from factors other than the neumes. Choosing a particular font for the chant text and choosing the staff line thickness can make a difference in the overall appearance of the page, and make it closer to the effect of the engravings in the Liber Usualis or the Graduale Romanum.

    I think the text font in your example above makes a difference, so here's an image of Gregorio output from my website http://gregorio.gabrielmass.com, next to the corresponding Liber page. The font is Gentium, and the staff line thickness factor was increased to 40.

    image

    (The photo has been "equalized" for color.)
    640 x 480 - 284K
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,865
    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.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    @CCooze
    Another book of Sequences for you... you will need pg. 51. (page numbering as in the book not .pdf file) I presume that this is the right sequence.
    https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/16149/1/Sequentiarium.pdf

    The above book has all? the Sarum Sequences,
    N.B. I have more books of Sequences in a file on my computer.

    As for the typesetting I quite agree that the L.U. version looks better. I do prefer the increased size that the G.R. uses but that version may be more difficult to use. I just thought that the modern notation looked so beautiful that it would be nice to have better looking chant.

    EDIT, link fixed (Google does not like cutting and pasting of links)
    Also Latin text and English Translations of the Sarum Sequences can be found here,
    https://archive.org/details/sequencesfromsa00wilgoog

    I also have the Sarum Gradual 1508 with this sequence I can send the relevant pages (2.8Mb) so too large to post here.
    Thanked by 2CCooze CHGiffen
  • 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,
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Thanks! It looks like what I had written down while listening to the chant, but it will definitely be easier to just make sure it matches, rather than writing the whole thing out by ear.
    **Edit: it's very close, anyway. Still nice to see it. I may go by the audio version, as I've found multiple versions that sing it that way, rather than directly with the chant.

    I had managed to find a Sarum Missal on Google, but it was, naturally, not giving me a preview of the 1 page it listed as having this sequence. Google Books can be so fickle.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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.)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    I presume that Isaac was writing for one of the European Missals which would have it's own text. It is very common to find differences in the texts used in these Sequences.

    Have just checked and Cantus has this Sequence (as part of a new index of Sequences!) and it is very popular in Central Europe, there are plenty of entries.

    http://cantus.uwaterloo.ca/content/635064

    Sadly none of the Manuscripts are online (at least there are no links) and unlike some entries there is no text and discussion. The next stage if you are interested is to search for each manuscript on google which will tell you if it has been digilitized and what libraries have a copy.

    But also it has the Analecta Hymnica reference, Vol. 53 No. 36,
    https://archive.org/stream/analectahymnicam5253drev#page/n485/mode/2up
    (The link should take you to the correct page Vol.53 pg. 65 or pg. 486 of the electronic version)

    This has a discussion of the text (in German). As you can see the main version has Tonanti but the discussion gives a variation in text of Trinitati found in some manuscripts. My German is not brilliant and is more used to translating chemistry papers, but I could ask my wife (from Switzerland) to translate.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CCooze
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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?
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    Will work on a translation today and post here later,

    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 word in the manuscript above is Tonanti, if you look the manuscript has "tonāti" the "ā" (This should display as an lower case A with a line over) this means that there is an abbreviation. There are a few other examples of this further up the manuscript page.
    It appears to be a Latin word http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=tonanti&la=la

    why there was such a variation.


    Hmm, This will take some research but variation in texts is the rule, rather than the exception. (A quick look through the Analecta Hymnica will show plenty of texts and their variants)
    A few possible reasons for differences between manuscripts,
    1. A deliberate change (improvement) to suit the ideas of the place, this change could have been made by the bishop.
    2. The manuscript was written from memory and the listener and or singers were not clear.
    3. A mistake by a scribe.

    I quite like Trinitati too, but then I am in England, and Sarum is the Historic Rite of my part of the country. The problem with using the Sarum text is that all the variations in the text will need to be altered to the Sarum not just Trinitati.
    If I was setting the chant for this sequence I would do the Sarum Text, but also do a version of the main Analecta Text. Also if any of the manuscripts gave a clear easy to typeset chant I would do these as well, especially if the melody was better.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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")
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    Have corrected the OCR of the text and made a rough translation of the Analecta Hymnica. Instead of posting the whole text I will just give a shortened version,

    "The compilers of the Analecta have referenced 52 manuscripts with this sequence (They also mention many other more recent sources not collated.
    They give a main text and then list 30 differences in the text most are only found in one manuscript but some are found more often...
    1, 2 modulemus rather than modulemur
    6, 5 persequentium ... persequentum
    13, 2 comprehenditur ... comprenditur
    15, 1 mortem eius ... eius mortem
    16, 2 quem ... quam
    21, 2 iocundetur ... iucundentur
    22 Trinitati this is the main difference in 27 of the 52 manuscripts and they claim that the Trinitati is a CORRECTION!

    Separate melodic versions from Germany, France, England and Italy can be found, some with omitted text. One French version is missing the counter verses (an organ alternatim?) They also wonder whether the German or French version is the authentic Notkerian scheme, and wonder if the St. Gallen version is the more perfect.

    England and Italy's sources are sporadic and late, The French version is that found in Reims.

    It has been used in a number of Liturgical positions, Dominica s. Paschae, Dominica in alibis, Feria II or IV of Easter Week"

    N.B. This research was published in 1909 so may no longer be the latest on this sequence.
    Thanked by 2CCooze CHGiffen
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    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.
    Thanked by 2CCooze CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    persequentium ... persequentum

    This one is very interesting, as I noticed just yesterday that both are in this polyphony: the first 2 parts having -tium, and the 3rd part having -tum. I almost left it at -tium, regardless of how awkward it would be for those first 2 parts to fit it into 1 beat, but when I saw the 3rd I decided that it probably wasn't supposed to be that way.

    Does your list show the Hostem ... Mortem and say anything about it? Even the Sarum translation uses the word "death." I suppose death could be considered the enemy - but direct, rather than poetic, translations are so much easier to follow.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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!)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    Does your list show the Hostem ... Mortem and say anything about it?

    Have read through it several times but it has no mention of a difference in manuscripts over this word it just gives Mortem. My Sarum Gradual also has Hostē (Hostem). Perhaps it is a later change found in the more recent manuscripts not covered by the Analecta?

    Does anyone know where to find scans of this online?


    Of the Sequence? I can send a copy of the Sarum Gradual, I have not followed the references given on Cantus yet.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,498
    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.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Of the Sequence?

    No, I meant scans of the mensural polyphony.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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)
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    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.


    @ RichardMix
    Thanks for that, I was meaning to have a look for the Gradual, is the Missal also lost as that would be almost as good.
    Looking at the list of manuscripts (Graduale) a good selection is available of places not far from Konstanz.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    @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...
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Thanks, @tomjaw. I tried to catch those -ae's, but am not surprised that I missed some. Watching the text for the VPL & RC jump from voice to voice made the words tricky.
    On my phone I can't see what you're referring to with "Nostra qui so let re-," but I'll look into it.


    I keep wondering exactly how/where it would have worked.
    If used as a legitimate sequence/prosa, I sort of assume it would have been for Low Sunday, and so following the Alleluia, just before the Gospel.
    I'm not sure if the point was perhaps to keep the VPL going (was it only used throughout Easter week at that time?). I do believe that the Last Gospel was in fairly common practice at that point, so would it have been used then?


    I'm still not sure how his introit for Easter would work, since it also includes both the proper and additional text found in the Sarum Missal, simultaneously. (I never received a response from my priest as to whether or not we would be allowed to use it - but I suppose it could at least be used as the refrain of the antiphon?).
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    @ 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.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    I meant if THIS piece was to be used as a legitimate (read: for real, actual) sequence, that I think it would go before the Gospel.
    ...As opposed to, say, using it as an extremely legitimate piece of liturgical music for Easter/Eastertide that isn't, in any way, a required part of the Mass.

    From what I've understood and read, the sequence can also be referred to as "prosa," and that there isn't a difference.
    The Sequence (Sequentia)—or, more accurately as will be seen further on, the Prose (Prosa)

    ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12481d.htm )
    The way one chooses to compose it may make a difference, though (this being a very good example!)

    Now that I've gotten to my computer, I can see what you're talking about with the chant. Some that were too long I divided into 2 lines instead of 1. Those words probably got lost. I'll make sure to replace them.
    In regards to coeli/celi/caeli, et al, I suppose that seeing any version might not confuse some people, but since the "current" version of such vowels is "ae," I'm going ahead and using that (except when I -apparently- completely miss it).

    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...

    I agree, for the most part.
    I do think that someone following the propers in their hand missals should be able to tell that the choir is, in fact, singing what they're reading, which might be difficult if they're hearing other words that they don't find in the propers at all.

    I think there's a significant difference between foregoing the chant for polyphonic propers (which could be hard enough for the congregant to follow), and foregoing the chant for polytextual polyphony (which might be impossible to follow).

    Again, and as you also said, I think it's important to clear with the celebrant.

    Of course, I'm all for the idea of using the chant first before any of these propers by Isaac, because then people (and the singers, themselves) can hear parts of what they have just heard chanted and realize that we aren't just singing other types music for our own amusement.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,498
    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?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Corinne, are you operating under some pre-tridentine indult?

    ?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,498
    Under what circumstances do you envision using Laudes salvatori as a 'legitimate sequence'?
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,865
    It couldn't be sung before the Gospel, but it could be sung as an additional piece of music after the communion chant or the offertory chant.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    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.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    Ah, I see Richard.
    I don't see this polyphony at all being able to be used in the place of a sequence at any Masses, nowadays. What I meant was if he had somehow written it to be such, and there was some way that it could have been (in his time), it would clearly have gone before the Gospel.

    It would obviously be used as a motet in any Masses now.

    The chant itself, though, could maybe be used at the place of a sequence. As long as it's in the correct liturgical season and is not displacing a sequence in the rubrics for the day, then I don't see why not (if the celebrant deems it appropriate, anyway).
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,498
    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.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    I've seen it marked for elsewhere multiple times since the start of the transcribing process.
    Perhaps when I get to a computer I can share a few.

    Also, I see a great distinction between a sequence and a polytextual piece containing both 2 sequences and an antiphon - unless you don't see a problem with chanting both the Laudes Salvatori and the Victimae Pachali Laudes, as well as the Regina Caeli before getting to the Gospel. At that point, I could understand how you would think the 2 versions equivalent.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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
    Thanked by 2tomjaw CHGiffen
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    Isaac Prose 'Laudes Salvatori' makes an ideal Eastertide motet...

    The Analecta Hymnica has made clear that the Sequence has been used in a number of positions, Easter Sunday, Low Sunday or Feria II or IV of Easter Week. The Sarum Missal has it on Low Sunday, could we describe the Sarum Missal as one of the more commonly used Missals?

    As for scores of manuscripts... does this not tell us more about which manuscripts survive rather than common usage which may be something different.

    Anyway can we go back to doing something more constructive... like working on the next Isaac Proper.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen CCooze
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,498
    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.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    (I've updated the Laudes Salvatori pdf and midi files. Found a few extra lyric mishaps, but hopefully it's all correct now.)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 1,527
    Leave it for now... I don’t have it on hand at the moment, but firstly, the propers often pre-date the Vulgate, and secondly, the “cum”/“dum” usage is something that happened in later Latin. The 1st antiphon af Pentecost Vespers differs from the epistle of the Mass, for example.
    Thanked by 3CCooze CHGiffen tomjaw
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,256
    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. =)
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen tomjaw
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,498
    long, interesting debates … rehearsal
    Do these really belong together?
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,293
    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
    Thanked by 1CCooze