Gloria XV (Dominator Deus) -- Modern Notation
  • John_F_ChurchJohn_F_Church
    Posts: 52
    The choir I run is doing this for Advent in combination with the other simple Latin chants.

    This is the transcription I made for it, and I wanted to share it as a gift to you all. Hope someone finds it useful.

    -jfc
    Gloria_XV.pdf
    47K
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Ted
    Posts: 201
    Was wondering when you are doing the Gloria in Excelsis during Advent, since it is not allowed on the Sundays.

    Thank you for this but from what version was this transcribed? As you do, Solesmes lengthens the last note of every bar, both breath and sentence, which makes musical sense. Others do not. Also, there is traditionally a quilisma on the first syllable of the Amen to enlarge it for accentuation but which you do not have. The Roman accents for the Latin text are important for the singers but are missing from your version. A natural verbal rhythm transferred to the melody would generally follow the Latin accentuation. Not to be overly critical, these are just my observations.
    Thanked by 3DavidOLGC ServiamScores John_F_Church
  • John_F_ChurchJohn_F_Church
    Posts: 52
    Ted, thank you for your feedback and your observations. (And thank you for being brave enough to be the one to make them!) I will admit I am probably lagging behind other people here as far as familiarity with the nuances and inner workings of chant, so your advice is welcome.

    As far as what edition I was transcribing from, it was based off the how Carlo Rossini’s organ accompaniment was notated. (Minus the quillisma, and the Roman accentuation, which I am ignorant of whether they are in Musescore or not. Fortunately my choir has sung enough other glorias to be familiar with which syllables are accented.)

    My understanding was that the elongation of penultimate notes was a performance practice and not legislative towards the manuscript themselves.

    For reference, here are both the neumes (courtesy of CCWatershed) and the Rossini organ accompaniment.

    Thank you again!
    -jfc
    AD1E0548-762D-42CB-8A3C-391C10AFD102.jpeg
    551 x 1100 - 284K
    5B318643-A6C3-4B08-BADC-094EED1CDD66.jpeg
    3024 x 4032 - 4M
  • John_F_ChurchJohn_F_Church
    Posts: 52
    And as far as using it — things like Immaculate Conception and the like.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Ted
    Posts: 201
    So it seems you transposed the Rossini version melody down to follow the solmisation of the square notation. There are versions of the Liber Usualis in modern notation which already do that. See page 62 at:

    http://www.lakewoodsound.com/quilisma/liber_usualis_full.html

    The scan there is not very good, so your transcriptions are most welcome. The Latin text in the Rossini version, by the way, retains the Roman accentuation using acute accents on the accented syllables.

    There is nothing wrong in using Gloria XV for feasts of Our Lady, although the tradition is to use Mass IX or X. The former is much more neumatic than XV, but quite melodic so fairly easy to sing.
    Thanked by 1John_F_Church
  • John_F_ChurchJohn_F_Church
    Posts: 52
    Thanks for the link!!

    When it comes to modern notation, I prefer the stemless approach — while it doesn’t communicate it perfectly as do the actual square notes, I believe it helps to communicate the “otherness” of chant as compared to truly modern music.

    My pastor/boss, in order to familiarize the congregation with Gregorian chant, rotates Gregorian mass settings. So it doesn’t really follow their assigned days.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,722
    I agree: stemless really seems preferable. It is much less cluttered to read, more closely approximates the original, and prevents people from being tempted to sing strict rhythmic ratios between 8ths and quarters.
    Thanked by 1John_F_Church
Add a Comment