"If chant is sung speech and ought to be sung at the pace at which one speaks, then is all chant to be sung at the same pace?"

I find your assumption about pace to be faulty. To begin, we don't all speak at the same pace. Furthermore the emotional character of the text influences speed of expression. Highly syllabic melodies are not necessarily equivalent to those with one neume per syllable. Also, if one is determined to sing a particular phrase in one breath, the length of that phrase may demand a quicker pace.

I think her question was more about whether certain types of chant (a Marian Antiphon for example) would be sung differently than the offertory proper.

When we say that chant is sung speech, some nuance needs to be offered. We do not always speak at the same pace or in the same manner, nor, because of the infinite variety of moods and intent by which our meaning in speech is conveyed, should we. Too, when speaking publicly, such as for a homily or an academic presentation, delivery is much more considered and deliberate than in normal conversational speech. If it were not, the hearers likely would have difficulty understanding and would, at any rate, very likely be unmoved, if not irritated.

It is this later, what I would call 'oratorical' speech with all its variety of delivery, that chant should imitate. We know, in fact, that there was a definite connexion between early chant and the oratory of the classical schools of rhetoric. Chant notation actually evolved from the rhetor's symbolic markings. The object is that chant not be an expressionless hum-drum delivery of a sequence of pitches to a sequence of vowels a la vocalise. Word accent, syllable accent, speech rhythm and dynamics are what one should wish to imitate for fluent, speech-like chant. This is the opposite of words as they are delivered in, for instance, a Bach aria, in which, while the word is of fundamental importance, it and the music are, arguably, equal partners. My own intuition is that the earliest chant was rather like cantillated rhetoric, with the generous influence of Syriac and Byzantine models.

Just as our speech varies according to what is said, where it is said, and how it is said, so it is with chant. There is no objective or standard 'chant tempo'. The text will reveal how it should be sung. If one's mind and musical faculties are not ablaze with the import of the text, he or she is not 'chanting' - for chanting is the artful delivery of textual message, story, and image to the hearers.

Who are you singing for? Who are you singing with? Who is expected to sing with you? Where are you singing? Which liturgical act does your chant accompany? What type of chant are you singing? What is the textual character of the chant? What specific aspects of the chant are going to emphasize? Are you a chorister, cantor and/or conductor?

Some answers are purely practical, some are philosophical, some are based on tradition, and some are matters of personal artistic interpretation. As stated above, there is no single, standard tempo.

My own intuition is that the earliest chant was rather like cantillated rhetoric

and

The text will reveal how it should be sung.

Bingo! Thus, the folks who "direct" Chant and know nothing about Latin other than the translation they've cadged from someplace....well...it shows, usually because the Chant becomes punch-punch-punchnotes in search of a phrase.

I agree with the gist of the remarks above. I would add (perhaps 'repeating in different words') that to say that chant is sung speech should not be taken to imply that the absolute pace of speech (even in all of its variation, as noted above) dictates the absolute pace of the singing. It is (to my mind) to say that the chant (both in its composition and in its execution) pays an appropriate respect to the text as it would be spoken. (I absolutely agree with dad that it is therefore important to be familiar with how it is reasonably well spoken!)

So, to take a simple example, to rush past an important word or syllable, or to call attention to an unimportant one, is, in general, not a good idea. One need not, however, 'mimic' the precise manner in which one dwells, or not, on a word of syllable in speech. Music has its own ways of accomplishing the same goals.

'Respect' (or lack of it) can be manifested in many aspects of the singing -- in rhythm, moments of emphasis, and indeed in all of the usual subtleties that make for great execution. Such subtleties appear in both singing and in speech. The former should be informed by the latter.

I think it is always a good idea to begin to learn a chant by learning to speak the words well, and then to notice what is happening when one does, and, finally, to think about whether and how the subtleties of emphasis, rhythm, pitch, timbre, and so forth might enter into a good execution of this particular chant.

Well, DD.....the rule has always been that the text is primary; or as Ratzinger put it, that music is the 'enfleshment' of the bones of text--or more commonly, the music illuminates the text.

All of which boils to this: if you do not understand the text, and sing that understanding, you are not singing Chant.

dad29:

You'd have a hard time finding someone who would argue with you about either of those points.

At the same time, music remains music. Speech remains speech.

I've seen arguments for equating the two (like Haberl insisted). But I've also seen arguments that: Speech is speech, and music is music. This was a hot topic in the late 1890s.

Stravinsky wrote a number of chorus and orchestra pieces after Persephone, perhaps most notably his Mass (1944–48) and Threni (1958).

Psalm tone recitations should move more briskly (and that would apply to all recitation-like phrases). Otherwise, I know of no reason to change your basic tempo depending on the chant genre.

Obviously, melismatic chant will sound slower, and that's the point. For composers of chant, melismas were the principal means of slowing the tempo to encourage reflection. Certain genres are more melismatic than others (graduals, alleluia verses) precisely to encourage this reflection.

But for syllabic chant, a good rule is to sing the phrase at a tempo that allows you to reach a natural textual pause in one breath (irrespective of barlines, which are about musical phrases). You may find this requires a brisker pace than you are used to (and perhaps have heard elsewhere). But that sort of flow is the only thing that saves chant from inducing auditory torpor on your listeners (and, eventually, your singers).

If you need to spend more time rehearsing syllabic chants to achieve that flow, it is well worth it in the long run. Unfortunately, most schola directors do the opposite, sloughing off the "easy" pieces and spending their time on the melismatic ones. Notes are notes, whether they have text attached or not, and should be rehearsed with equal zeal.

As for your basic tempo, I think if you can get through one standard three-phrase verse (to the double bar) of a sequence, for instance, without breathing (noticeably) at the intermediate phrase markings (and with a degree of musicality and rhetorical grace), then you have achieved a good working chant tempo. Transferring that agility to, say, the Offertory Jubilate Deo, is a trick, and no mistake. But it is what distinguishes a good, musical, and prayerful schola.

The chant slows for the wheezy soprano whose lungs are shot. She needs to gasp for air every three notes - there should be a marking in chant for that.

That's what the ictus is for.

Maybe if they just wrote "gasp" or "choke" above the staff, that would work.

Richard : five paragraphs packed with useful advice grounded in real experience. Great thanks!

I shake my head in sad wonder that so few seem to remember the Requiem Canticles. ;-)

needs to gasp for air every three notes

Pfffft. At one parish of my acquaintance, the music director-ette thinks that breath is REQUIRED after 3-4 notes, with singers not older than 40, and not a smoker among them.

I can sympathize with your old lady. She has an excuse.

A LONG time ago I was involved with a prayer group that sang "praise songs" as part of their prayer meeting. There were long spaces for breaths after only a few notes in one hymn which we sang often. My brother referred to the group as the "Asthmatic Charismatics."

One young man who directed a seminary schola said that one might picture the pace/tempo of the chant as smoke arising from a cigarette in an ashtray: languidly it curls and rises. Or again, Let my prayer rise like incense before You...

one might picture the pace/tempo of the chant as smoke arising from a cigarette

Four more days four more days four more days . . .

For those of us whose ears are showing signs of age, making each word distinct* is important. Most readers, chanters and celebrants seem to find it difficult to achieve. I am fortunate that our parish priest does it throughout the liturgy.
* As in "making^each^word^distinct" and not "makin^geachwor^distinct"

would come out something like 'Am-forchnit-thadarpershpreess-duzi-throoowdthuhday'

We've heard that you Southerners have serious speech impediments, and we will pray for you.

We've heard...

Kindly refrain from including me in your 'you Southerners'.
I've seen bumper stickers that say 'I wasn't born in Texas but I got here as fast as I could'.
If (which will never happen) I had a bumper sticker it might read 'I was dragged here when I was seven and have been trying to get out ever since'.

I suspect Texas is as good a place as many, although I would find it a bit too warm at times. I have met some genuinely devout Catholics from Texas.

Now Jackson, I am sure you could leave any time you choose. But you will have to figure out if that delegation seeing you off is there to wish you a fond farewell, or enjoy seeing you go. LOL.