The conversations about the rhythm and interpretation of Gregorian chant remind me of this.
Indubitably...and even then! That's why performers interested in returning to the sources have to make informed decisions about things like the value of different editions and manuscripts, which indications in the manuscripts appear to be more deliberate, etc., especially where a true oral tradition is lacking—which is everywhere when it comes to Gregorian chant, to be quite honest. I know that at many churches in my diocese, for example, they're going to hold different notes in the simple Salve Regina or the Sanctus from Mass XVIII. We should be clear that those variations in performance practice don't constitute an oral tradition any more so than whether the Presbyterians down the road sing Old Hundredth with equal notes or a mixture of long and short notes, regardless of what's printed in their hymnal. The tune was written a particular way in the Genevan Psalter, and anyone who desires to do so can see how it was printed there. It's similar for chant, except that we don't have an original edition at our disposal, but it would be a tremendous mistake to assign the same value to, say, a mediocre edition from the 18th century as to the adiastematic neumes that are still being copied by hand 1,100 years later in the name of legitimate variety enriching the repertory.It seems not only probable, but most likely true, that there were wild variations in "standard" chants across the European continent until more modern notation was developed.
Oh, would that we could unearth the original Dufford manuscript for a semiological study!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.