That most recent novalaon is surprisingly easy for me to read. Really, I am surprised, it looks pretty intimidating. Definitely more elegant than modern notation or Mr. Williams' edition. I'm sure there's some room for a little graphic improvement still, but I think it's definitely the right path. No melodic ambiguity, just a few places I question the rhythm, but that can be remedied by becoming more familiar with the neumes. Of course, a "nueme key" showing the neumes next to the modern notation equivalents would be essential for those who aren't familiar with Laon to learn it.

OMagnumMysterium, What do you think? Do I place the neumes closer together like this, including the long ones?

a pdf for better quality viewing:

Ah, I have no familiarity with Laon notation. I am a mere yeoman singer.

When I think of Laon, the first thing I think of this: https://tinyurl.com/ne6hcyw3

Like Fluxus, I find the Novalaon notation interesting and am able to read it without difficulty, but I question what advantages it offers over a duplex or triplex edition—or modern standard round notation. I'm also concerned that it makes the score unnecessarily esoteric instead of more accessible. If someone with a solid musical background must study six years to be considered a semiologist (according to Blackley), how long must one study to become a proportionalist? I fear these kinds of scores increase the study demands and might discourage some very competent singers who would do just fine with modern notation or my editions.

In a number of cases, you will have to "translate" St. Gall or other neumes for chants that are lacking in L. (Stingl has occasionally done something similar in "translating" Messine neumes to St. Gall.) Whether you're going to adhere to the Graduale Novum or the Vatican edition, you have to alter some of the neumes, which you've done in the example above at the first te and again at te exspectant. L doesn't notate the entire psalm verse, but you have written two longs at the mediant cadence, just as I do in my edition, where St. Gall has a short clivis. The added letters are helpful, but I don't think the n at universi should be neglected. The rather rounded initial stroke of the cursive torculus is problematic, as the Messine notation is relatively square there, just as for the pes, and reserves the rounded form for special cases involving ornamental notes. How will you notate the unison epiphonus? How will you notate the descending cephalicus or descending pinnosa? How will you notate the torculus when the third note is short, e.g., in the short pes subbipunctis? I admire all the effort you have clearly put into this!

The descending cephalicus I notated in the pdf above in the syllable "et" of psalmody. The pinnosa would be some curved form similar to this but maybe with the extra first note of the torculus. A short pes subbipunctis can be notated exactly as this, "a short pes with two punctis after" or as with a torculus without the third note similar to uncinus and with a third note similar to the last note of the porrectus flexus on "fun"(confundentur). The initial note of the quick torculus can easily be redesigned to more quadratic form and less curved and the torculus initio debilis would be with a design similar to the pes initio debilis. The liquescents and initio debilis basically need some type of spiral like the ones I did on the last note of tristropha on "ant", on the initio debilis in "te" and "animam" and in the epiphonus on "non", it's possible two spirals one to left and other to right in the same figure if it is initio debilis and liquescent simultaneously, and the "a" can be used if you need to differentiate between a long liquescense and a short.

Pdf

How about something like this?

OMM

Much more lucid to the non-initiated.

Liquescents and initio debilis, both interpreted as "grace notes before the beat"(acciacatura, an appoggiatura that doesn't alter the duration of the note after it but takes some time of what came before).

In the oriscus I Iike to do uppermordent or turn and in strophas I like to do pulsed vibrato in the repercussion, in quilisma sometimes an uppermordent, sometimes a turn, sometimes a glissando with vibrato, the main difference between oriscus and quilisma is that quilisma is interpreted as a grace between two notes and oriscus as a note with length (short or long duration) and a ornamentation tied to it. Van Biezen proposes to make an appoggiatura/acciacatura in the upper border before the main tone, I think it's easier to do the pitch of the oriscus, quickly move to the upper pitch and then return to the pitch of the oriscus.

But these ornaments are optional in the melody (maybe with the exception of quilisma as a light passing tone), it depends on the choir and soloist.

Corrected.

In the modern notation I don't like the "disconnectedness " with large spacing of the notes in the same syllable, when using quarter notes and eight notes and didn't like to use the slurs to do the connection. Because of this I proposed to use eighth note and sixteenth notes beamed together; and because the eight in the syllabic parts would be excessive in visuals with the stem and flag, I made only with notehead. The proportion between quarter and eight and eight and sixteenth is 2:1 so either could be used if the performer know that the tempo isn't too rush. Also the modern notation have the excessive consuming of horizontal space, it's this and the fact of the controversies about the interpretation of ornamental notes that made me try a hybrid: as if the square and the modern have a baby but with ornamental characteristics of the neumatic grandmother.

1. It's a unison liquescent note, what Cardine calls an augmentative liquescent. Yes, it is a diction reminder. Make sure the d is voiced so it doesn't get lost and come out as a te.
2. I recommend always before the beat, but this is a matter of interpretation. As I said, I included the alternative reading as two shorts for demonstrative purposes. To be as clear as possible: these transcriptions represent two possible interpretations of the same chant, not different ways of notating a single interpretation. The compelling evidence to the contrary lies in comparison of the sources. The uncinus at te is a single note. If the examples are to remain transcriptions of the Novum and not a new edition, the lower note can't disappear entirely.
3. If you're interpreting the oriscus as an upper auxiliary note, I again recommend a before-the-beat rendition.

A follow-up posting to May 12 above: The Graduale Renovatum website now has a recording of the Gradual Liberasti nos from the 23rd Sunday after Pentecost, sung by the St. Blaise Schola Cantorum according to a semiological reading of the chant. The recording might be of interest to compare with the one posted above on Feb 3 demonstrating a proportionalist interpretation of the same chant.

www.gradualerenovatum.com

I spent some more time with this today. Based on the recording, I would expect the neumes in question to be notated like this:

But they're not. Semiologists, what do you say? I count twelve instances of definite, unambiguous long markings being disregarded; the adiastematic neumes cannot be accurately reconstructed from the recording in those places. Now, if the rhythmic markings are only meant to indicate slight agogic nuances, I don't suppose it makes much of a difference, but if I believed that, I wouldn't have joined this discussion.