@ClergetKubisz Why?

I must admit I am totally uninterested in these. I don't like the concept of "multipart psalmody" (structured not by verses of 2 or three parts, but by strophes of 1-6 parts) and psalmody with several different recitation tones. I prefer solutions more resembling the traditional Latin psalmody.

But that's an off-topic, possibly worth it's own thread. Here I would really like to hear suggestions concerning the modern history of the (real) Gregorian chant.

Jackson and I don't find ourselves on the diametrically opposite sides of a question, but I guess there's a first time for everything. Maybe the gulf isn't as great as I think.


If the French at the Abbaye de Solesmes weren't perfect (and I doubt they were actually perfect, their work was baptized by HH Pope Pius X, of happy memory. Modern scholars can't simply chuck the stage of scholarship as it stood then, on the grounds that we know more now than they did, then. People make the same argument (I suspect, with much less evidence and much more of a theological agenda at work) when they say that we can't believe what the Church taught under reactionary, un-democratic popes a hundred years ago (or, in the case of HH Pope Francis, as little as 20 years ago). The new must be tested.

Well, Chris, can it be that we are at last on opposing sides? Let me offer that, as I have said on several other threads, the chant which you seem to favour has all the validity of Medicean chant, XVII century French plein-chant musical, the Pustet editions, or chant as it was already in decline before the mediaeval era was too old. Which is to say that it has the validity of a venerable relic whose time is passed, its place taken by more strenuous and reliable scholarship. The blessing of a pope doesn't change that. Nor does a few decades of use change that. Most Europeans, in fact, were never as excited about the so-called Solesmes manner of chanting as the addled Americans, Ward method in tow, were/are yet. It may be noted that whilst the Solesmes monks 'work was baptized [sic] by HH Pope Pius X, of happy memory', he did not state ex cathedra that their work was infallibly correct for all time henceforth. He was wise in this regard. Very wise.

I hope that this thread will open some doors that need opening and bring forth all that is good and respectable that has been gained in chant scholarship in recent decades. This needn't mean disrespect for venerable elder scholarship, but it should mean putting that venerable scholarship in a sorely needed (and well-deserved) perspective.

Yes, Chris -

Your example and comparison is impeccable.

The notion that something is better because it is new is pernicious and objectively error ridden.
One might say 'objectively disordered'.

The notion that something is better because it is old is pernicious and objectively error ridden.
One might say 'objectively disordered'.

>

This takes us to the knowledge that a scholarly study and analysis of manuscripts of the Carolingian era is revealing, things that Mocquereau would undoubtedly have arrived at had he had (quite a lot) more birthdays than he did. Bear in mind, as Fr Columba often tells, that when the pope asked Mocquereau how long it would take to fashion a definitive edition of the chant he was told 'fifty years', to which the pope responded, 'do it in five'. The result, predictably, was an imperfect, error ridden book. You really are not sparring with me, but with the likes of Dom Eugene Cardine, Dom Daniel Saulnier, Alberto Turco, Columba Kelly, et al. - who know infinitely more about chant than anyone who is peddling 'Solesmes method' and American Ward method chant in the XXIst century. It is high time that the CMAA had a genuine encounter with current scholarship, its irrefutable findings, and adopted a more honest and academically defensible and open public posture with regard to our repertory of liturgical chant. Doing so would enhance its repute greatly.

@smvanroode Thank you very much! The titles are really promising. Unfortunately the series "Study gregoriani" doesn't seem to be available anywhere in the Czech Republic, so I will probably have to postpone the study of these until an eventual visit to some foreign library.

just a reminder- Pope Pius X approved the restoration of the MELODIES. The Solesmes rhythmic signs were not allowed in the Editio Typica, however, as this was a theory. There is no sense of "chucking out" something a pope asked for as it wasn't even allowed in the Church's official books. Vatican II asked for a closer look at even the melodies of the Chant- and there is much to be looked at, that was not properly understood or at least appreciated in the late 19th century- the "ti" dominant in mode III,for just one example, as it was thought in those days, it would be peculiar sounding to modern ears. A servile imitation of even those choirs following the "Solesmes Method" is certainly not something sought after. One gives a choir good principles and then a choir will always have its own sound and find its own way. I love to hear the differences in the interpretation of Chant between the Abbey of OL of Argentan, and Fontgombault, and others who claim to be following the "method" all are beautiful and certainly unique from one another, and yet I don't use the method in my own work, but I certainly appreciate all the work to do ones best and in the end, sing the Chant.

By utter chance, I stumbled across a little book by one John Rayburn from 1964, called Gregorian Chant: A history of the controversy concerning its rhythm. I haven't cracked it yet, but it looks like something along the lines of what you're looking for. Worldcat or AbeBooks should be able to locate a copy.