You have found the same 'cheat' that many others of us have found in our chant journey... but you, too, eventually will get so comfortable that you see the solfege note in your head on the staff as easily as you see modern notation letter notes :)

What a nice demonstration!

Thank you for all your comments. I was just concerned I would never learn the authentic method if I keep going on with my own modified way for the sake of convenience. I wish Catholic education provide formal chant courses more widely. I did not major in music but it is even hard to find competent music teachers who can teach chant.

I'll add what I didn't say in my last comment. I think you'll learn the chant notation much more quickly if you force yourself to go "cold turkey," without relying on modern notation. The more you immerse yourself in the square notes, the more quickly you'll get to the point at which your brain sees the clef and the four-line staff and just knows where the half steps are, without even thinking about it.

Honestly.

Yes, yes, yes on cold turkey. The extra mental step is a waste. I wasted a full year cheating in my own mind until our chant director--AVOZ--finally got me to think in neumes alone.

You can't add an extra line to the staff. It's an outrage! A "G" loses the essence of "G"-ness if you write it on a 5-liner. The nuances and implications of its "G" essence are lost and distorted. It can never be properly interpreted or understood. It's a revisionist, Bugnini-instigated heresy of the worst order. Lord have mercy! ;-) In all seriousness, I am fine with singing from a 4-line staff, but can not play an accompaniment to it. I need modern notation for that.

Of course they have "G"-ness. Not trusting "G" essences from Schantz is probably a sin, as well. You haven't heard my choir's "basement"-ness when they sing unaccompanied. That's where their pitches go. ;-) Now that's one essence you don't want anything to do with.

Chant has been accompanied for how many hundreds of years now? Of course, I realize it almost died out for many years before its restoration in the 19th century in the Roman church. But as a practical matter, I don't do that much chant, except for Latin mass parts during Lent. I do have a soft, reedy string stop the choir can hear, but a few rows away, the congregation doesn't. It works well for keeping the choir on pitch. So when I see "G" on the staff and play "G" on the organ, the choir sings all the "G" nuances and implications correctly. However, that's "G" on the 5-line staff, not the 4-line. We can't have anything novel or illicit during mass, so the two forms can not be mixed.

For hundreds of years??? Well, of course, the accompaniments which seem to enthrall so many nowadays have not been around THAT long, have they? So, of course, whether the chant was accompanied in pre-romantic eras is a matter of conjecture; and, if it was, it would have sounded very different from that romantic-Victorian genre which we have inherited from 150+ yrs ago. Actually, it would be interesting to know 'exactly' how the chant was performed (or, what was DONE to it) throughout its long life... then, we could entertain ourselves (and our Maker) by offering XIII. century chant one Sunday, IX. century the next, and XX. century the next. There is really no end to it, is there? But, at all costs, stay out of the basement!

As for the ditty of which you speak. I have neither heard it, nor, from what you say about it, wish to. (I gather that it is utterly lacking in 'liturgical-ness'.) But you, or I, or some other members of this forum could probably compose a more appropriate setting of these words on 4, or 5, lines.

The Grenoble edition of the Graduale Romanum printed the neumes of the Vaticana on a five-line staff with a G-clef (with sharps and flats, I think). I have never seen a copy of this edition; but I have seen portions of a few chants reproduced from in in a book by Alec Robertson.

"Yes, yes, yes on cold turkey. The extra mental step is a waste."

I was fortunate enough to not be very well versed in modern notation when I was introduced to chant notation. My limited use and understanding of modern didn't hinder me when learning this "new" notation. Attempting to learn the one by merging the better understood with the lesser seems like a daunting and yes, ultimately futile task. Unless, perhaps if your focus is on transcribing from chant to modern notation.

Thumbs up for cold turkey

All discussion aside, that merged modern/neumes thing you posted, Anhaga, is so cool!

Sure, Anhaga. You can't do that translating stuff forever. You have to just forget everything else and go with solfege. It can take years.

Still, I think the overlay you did was great. It really shows you how much simpler it is to sing from Gregorian notation than from modern. There is not nearly as much to learn and balance and calibrate. Not that singing the chant is easy! It requires more focus (blessed focus!!!) than almost anything I've ever done musically. It's totally absorbing.

AND...the thing you posted is a piece of art in itself...like a look into someone's brain!

"when singing, the "do" is hard to move to another line when changing from one chant to another."

I agree with you.

The good news is that chant is a prayer, not a one-time performance. I am sure it will be best learned and practiced in daily prayer and liturgy.

More chants in liturgy, more chant courses in Catholic education!