I still have the impression semiotic chant performance practice (whatever that is) is something under construction. Cardine makes an excellent case that, as a reconstruction of Carolingian singing, the Solesmes interpretation is built on sand, and has left us a nice little pile of sawdust instead.

Donning asbestos...

Tut, tut.

I say: of course authorities differ, and will continue to differ.

The "evidence in the neumes" is why folks were advised to lengthen the note before the quilisma in the first place.

From Dom. Mocquereau's book, we have this:

§ 2. — The MSS. The Retroactive Effects of the Quilisma.

534. — The Latin quilisma has a retroactive effect, and even prolongs the note or neum preceding it.

To this rule there is no exception : it is proved in one way or another by those manuscripts of every country which have preserved the rhythmic notation, whether wholly or in part.

—Le Nombre Musical Grégorien, p. 415.

And the same is true for the other oft-despised characteristics of the Mocquereau's Solesmes method.

To wit, the expressive rendering of the middle note of the salicus, and of the first note only in the case of the clivis with an episema are likewise derived from the evidence of the neumes.

Regarding the usual treatment of the middle note of the salicus, we find on p. 402 that:

512. — This interpretation is supported by the following facts:

1° Neumatic equivalents in the St. Gall manuscripts ;
2° Romanian letters ;
3° The use of the same sign for the pressus and the salicus in the manuscripts of Metz, Laon, Verceil and Milan ;
4° Equivalents in the manuscript of Laon ;
5° Adaptation of the text to the salicus

And on p. 175, we have a very clear table showing the clivis with and episema, with parallel Solesmes and modern notation alongside it showing explicitly that such a figure is to be regarded as a "clivis with an episema on the first note": for this was how Mocquereau read the evidence of the neumes.

If you sing from the neumes of the Graduale Triplex, are you really basing your decisions on more evidence than was consulted by Dom. Mocquereau and his colleaugues?

Thus, please remember that what we have with our standard editions of chant, marked with the Solesmes rhythmic signs, is a recommended, practical way of singing this body of repertoire according to findings of scholarly semiology.

Also, please note that when interpreted discretely, these indications made in the name of Solesmes are in fact still compatible even with such seemingly contradictory assertions as were made by the original poster, for those who ascribe to such conclusions of modern research sufficient credence as to find it necessary to reflect this in their singing.

[And as a postscript, let me add: it is abundantly clear that the intent of the Solesmes signs is definitely not to have the notes marked with the episema or the note before the quilisma tripled in value, which I feel that I have heard done inadvertently by more than one ensemble.]

hold that thought

or don't

I am hardly an expert, but I had thought Mocquereau's understanding--while he performed important work--- was largely superceded. Certainly, Solesmes has abandoned all of that in their new editions, as has the Graduale Novum. I have made it through Cardine's Semiology, but cannot claim to have been enlightened too much beyond the basics. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think it is Cardine's "Chant year One" I am singing through and it is very enlightening. There's lots to read but of course it comes down to the conductor and the singers he has available.

Kenneth

Some of us are only concerned about the scholarship behind the neumes to the extent that it provides us with a workable musical score which we'll then sing in a manner we feel works best musically. Even if what's written about rhythm in the LU is absolutely how it was sung when Charlemagne was crowned (or take your pick of event), why do we have to sing it exactly the same way?

Even if what's written about rhythm in the LU is absolutely how it was sung when Charlemagne was crowned (or take your pick of event), why do we have to sing it exactly the same way?

I would say this: I am a proponent of the "old Solesmes" method (well, mostly because it's the only way I've learned, so y'all may take this with a grain of salt) not because of any notion that it might have been "absolutely how it was sung when Charlemagne was crowned (or take your pick of event)" - but a) because it seems more practical to teach a choir - and also works best for groups from different places joining together and singing knowing the same basics; and especially b) because it seems more beautiful.

His reply was that there will never be a definitive rendering (because scholarly understandings continue to evolve), and that the most important thing is that everyone singing together in a particular ensemble interprets the neums in the same way. In other words, agreement within the ensemble (steered by the director) is more important than a knock-down-drag-out about what symbol [x] means.

Adding to/following on what I just said above - in my opinion: well, obviously it is important that there is unity/agreement within the ensemble; but I think it is equally important to consider the beauty of whatever "method" a choir is agreeing upon.

This is probably a really, really bad and, I don't know, maybe unfair? analogy, but it popped into my mind, so I'll just use it:

I had a friend at college, in the music department of which I was a part; he was so very interested in Schoenberg. If you got to talking to him, if you let him talk about it, he would get so, so excited talking about the theoretical ideas behind the various atonal systems Schoenberg employed. And he was pretty much able to convince me that it actually is very interesting and, in a certain sense/to a degree, amazing, some of the music theory and scholarship, shall we say, in how he created his musical pieces. But the reason I could never stomach Schoenberg (his atonal music, at least) - is because, no matter how theoretically interesting it is, it is...well...ugly! Haha.

OK, and so the reason I'm saying this is probably a terrible analogy is because I don't really think that the "new Solesmes" method is ugly...though I do think the more one strays from what I perceive to be the rhythmic principles and nuances involved in the "old Solesmes" method, I do think it becomes less beautiful. But the reason I am saying this is an analogy: sure, the scholarship behind whatever advances we are discovering in the chant manuscripts is interesting, but in the end, I think one has to ask oneself if whatever discoveries are being made are actually making the chant, in practice, more beautiful.

I hope that I can one day actually make a more detailed study - even just in terms of listening, because hearing goes a long way - of the "newer" Solesmes method, so that I can feel more secure that I'm not just blindly/vehemently sticking to the method I've always known. The method about which I grew not only a bit more knowledgeable, but which I internalized to the very depths of my soul, having just spent 11 months at a monastery which utilized the "old" Solesmes method.

I do too, though I prefer Berg.

Too many of these threads have deteriorated into discussions of Schoenberg and other members of the Second Viennese School.

>> What happens if for some reason you do hold the note before the quilisma?

The OP will round up other CMAA forum posters to surround your house and try to stone you to death with popcorn.

Too many of these threads have deteriorated into discussions of Schoenberg and other members of the Second Viennese School.

...who wrote no liturgical music. (and I LIKE Webern's religious music)

These discussions remind me of similar, even more detailed and impassioned discussions, in the Caecilia and elsewhere, in the late 50s and early 60s, when singing the chant exactly right was the Most Important Thing. And then the meteor hit.

This reminds me of Charles Cole's reminiscence of the cafe Le Quilisma, down the road from the Abbey of Solesmes, which is owned and run by the Abbey Organist.

All this time I thought Schoenberg's "Friede Auf Erde" was a Christmas/religious piece. And beautiful, too. Pre-dodecaphonic.

I've never sung nor heard "Friede auf Erde" .... but I have heard "Friede auf Erden."

Seems to be an uptick in these type of discussions on here lately. These sort of details it seems to me are the least we should be concerned with when the average Catholic at the average parish is (generally speaking) completely ignorant of chant and true liturgical music.

As far as ossification is concerned being dogmatic about any specific detail of interpretation be it Cardinesque or Mocqueruan, seems undesirable.

I find that some people just have an agenda and if you don't fit into that agenda they are automatically against you. Some people really do hate chant, no matter how it is performed. I used to not believe that but have found it to be true.

I disagree. I have encountered a good number of cases in which people don't like chant, and in many of these cases, it seems that is in part due to the fact that what they hear is ........

well
I don't have statistics. I seem to encounter 4 different kinds of people.

1. People who know what chant is and hate it. They are (with rare exceptions) nearly always over a certain age and apparently take issue with daylight savings... always going on about "turning back clocks" along with indiscernible mumblings about "pre vatty can too". I don't think it's the quality that bothers them.
2. People who know what chant is and are grateful.
3. People who kinda vaguely recognize the words 'Gregorian Chant' and associate it with a vague impression of an Alleluia jubilus which they have picked up from movies and TV commercials.
4. People who have no idea.

Most people I meet seem to fall into the 3rd and 4th categories, especially if they're younger than about 50.

------
how do I make this purple?(There is a 5th category consisting of snobbish, white, NPR listening, northeast US liberals who think G Chant is just "lovely" but they're never Papists)

Not sure I follow Mr. Osborn.

Shakespeare for example. I think it highly important that High Schoolers read him. I think it less concerning that they fail to use historically correct pronunciation.

I think it important that Gregorian chant be used in the Liturgy of Saint Gregory (outside of the tiny handful of marginalized and insignificant pockets in which it currently exists, chant that is). I think it of very little relative concern that the historically correct rendering of quilismas be used. (Especially if it is debatable that it is historically correct)

The entire question is straining gnats and I guess I'm the sort of person who will down a beer with a gnat in it.

There is a 5th category consisting of snobbish, white, NPR listening, northeast US liberals who think G Chant is just "lovely" but they're never Papists

even people with no musical training can and do have at least some inner sense of what is beautiful, when they are presented it.

The problem is when they have been presented with that which is not good for so long that they no longer trust in what could be the most beautiful. I have a feeling that this is why some priests won't allow chant in their parishes: they're afraid it won't be good, even if they've never heard you try it. Either that, or they're afraid of people complaining about it because that's what their experience has been, and there's now just a bias against it.

As for the quilisma, my music history text mentions that it may be a symbol used in a chant for when a vocal ornament was sung during the oral transmission.

We southerners listen to NPR, too, at least the music. I turn off the political stuff. It's the only classical music station in town. And we are not liberal. Snobbish? Maybe, but you may have asked for it with your actions.

"The notes which precedes the quilisma are almost always written with long signs" (Gregorian Semiology, 200)

"The melody obviously tends towards the note which follows the quilisma. This note is brought into relief by the ornament which follows and by the fact that the same note is repeated as the first note of the next syllable…. In these formulas, the St. Gall MSS underline the note which follows the quilisma by the addition of an episema to the clivis…. Let it be added, however, that in the formulas [quilisma-clivis] the lengthening of the last two notes is so normal that copyists did not always think it necessary to point this out by the addition of an episema. L indicates the length of the two notes by detaching them from one another and by the occasional addition of an [a]." (Ibid. 201)

"When the note which follows the quilisma is a "subpunctis", the St. Gall copyists almost always underline its importance by the addition of an episema." (Ibid. 202)

"There are also instances in which one or two higher notes follow the quilisma pes. These notes can be either light or long. But the virgo after the quilisma still remains important. It is always followed by an intentional pneumatic break and it often carries an episema." (Ibid. emphasis mine)

"The higher note which follows the virgo of the quilisma-pes is sometimes the principal note, but this does not diminish the rhythmic value of the preceding note which is prepared by the quilisma." (Ibid. 203)

It's not as clear cut as Ralph implies, but it is true that the quilisma tends upwards, but this is not necessarily to the detriment of the preceding note, which is often also lengthened.

Cardine also discusses the similarities between the quilisma and the oriscus of the salicus, "since they are both passing notes in a group which ascends towards a principle note." Yet they are used differently in different melodic relationships: "The quilisma, a passing tone preceded by one or several lengthened notes is normally placed on MI or SI – weak degrees of the scale…. The oriscus of the salicus - a passing tone preceded by one or several light notes is usually found on the important degrees: FA or DO." (Ibid. 209)

Ah, that felt good. I always feel so mentally refreshed digging into chant theory and semiology after I've been away form it for a time.

Just because a note is important does not mean it must be lengthened.

What, what. what? I have a loud soprano in my choir who thinks the last note in any phrase is a fermata.

They want to hear themselves echoing in the room.

.