• Palestrina
    Posts: 290
    I am struck by the beauty of the Offertoria with their verses in Ott's Offertoriale. The verses often enrich the text of the Antiphon by the additional context they provide (See the 'Ave Maria' for one such example).

    One drawback of the Offertoriale is the absence of Solesmes rhythmic markings (Yes, yes - I know it was never meant to have them!). I would like to put some markings in to make the verses more palatable to my choir.

    Does anyone have any ideas about how to do this kind of 'conversion'? I'd welcome your thoughts.
    Thanked by 1Heath
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 1,224
    If you are used to singing the Solesmes markings, I would sing them through and see which notes you lengthen and mark accordingly.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,188
    (Obviously, just transcribe the episemata, dots, etc., for the antiphon/respond/whatever-terminology-you-use from the Solesmes books.)

    If you know the basics of the Carolingian notation ("The squiggly things"), get a copy of the Offertoriale Triplex--the verses are notated with the St. Gall & Laon neums, and it is fairly easy to transcribe the episemata from the St. Gall notation. Dots can also be used in place of episemata at major cadential points (half and full bars). Also, if you know some basics of the Vatican notation, its fairly easy to discover where to put the dots based on the mora vocis (blank spaces) in the melismata.
    Thanked by 1madorganist
  • Heath
    Posts: 776
    Palestrina, here are the "restored" verses:

    http://www.gregor-und-taube.de/html/materialien.htm

    (not marked with Solesmes notation either, but just FYI)
  • Palestrina
    Posts: 290
    Thanks to all of you for your responses.

    Has anyone found a set of editorial principles for the Solesmes Method? I take your point, tomjaw and Salieri, and while I could do that, it would feel a bit too much like 'faking it' for my comfort. From my standpoint, it would be better to have a set of principles to work from.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,188
    To the best of my knowledge, Dom Mocquereau's methodology in preparing the Solesmes editions was to transcribe into the notation the episemata (occasionally rendered as dots at cadences) from the Carolingian notation, and to assist singers by adding the dot to the notes that ought to be lengthened according to the principles of the mora vocis of the Vatican Edition (which also often coincide with marks of length in the Carolingian notation), though, admittedly, some markings were not transcribed, presumably to keep the printed score looking clean. (NB, the marking of the ictus is an invention of Mocquereau, with no basis in any chant-notation tradition prior to the Solesmes editions---which is not to be confused with the use of the vertical episema to mark the oriscus in the salicus.) I don't think that doing the same thing could be called "faking it".
  • Palestrina
    Posts: 290
    Salieri, I guess the fact that some markings were not transcribed is the part that makes me a bit reluctant to attempt my own versions. Surely, there must have been reasons beyond just keeping the score clean? I wonder which sources Mocquereau prioritised over others, for instance...
  • madorganist
    Posts: 407
    In the context of a melisma, the vertical episema not infrequently coincides with the note preceding a neumatic break in the manuscripts, especially when there is no mora vocis indicated in the Vatican edition (hence no space for an augmentation dot in the rhythmic edition). You can verify this for yourself by looking over a few graduals and tracts in the Triplex. The significance of neumatic breaks was not fully understood until Cardine, which is why the vertical rather than the horizontal episema was used, and also why there is no distinction between expressive and non-expressive breaks.