This is a fascinating discussion. I have my own quite strong opinions on how Chant ought to be sung, but acknowledge that it is impossible to know exactly how chant would have been sung in earlier centuries, and therefore don't fault anyone else for holding an opinion different than mine. Mine stems mostly from what I grew up with and studied in college, sang for 2 years in a monastery, and have continued to stick with, but I also acknowledge that other "methods," if you can even call them a method, can also be beautiful.

On the one hand, there have always been local traditions, and variances from location to location in the liturgy, and I am sure this has always been reflected in the music from location to location or region to region as well. On the other hand, it's really unfortunate that chant performance in the liturgy is a somewhat divisive topic with many differing opinions. And the reason it is really unfortunate is that the liturgy itself has suffered very, very greatly in the past 60 years, with the advent of the Novus Ordo Missae and its countless options (most of them non-traditional options, but that's not my point here...) - the last thing we need in today's Church is yet another point of disagreement and seeming lack of unity. For decades now (particularly the decades leading to Vatican II) the liturgy has been subject to so much criticism and change supposedly based on early sources, and it seems that in many ways the same has happened with Gregorian chant.

My view on the liturgy is that we really just need to go back to the pre-Vatican II liturgy, and until we live in more sane times, we should just learn to love the liturgy as it developed until then. After the Church (and the world) comes more out of its current crisis, maybe then we'll be able to take a good, better, more honest look at "reforming" the liturgy (although I personally think there is little to no reforming necessary of a liturgy that has developed from Apostolic times into what it was before the reforms of the '60s). I tend to think the same about chant, but it's a little more difficult to pinpoint what "method" would be the most likely for the Church (Latin church at least) as a whole to agree upon and stick with until more sane times.

According to Dom Jean Claire, who was at Cardine's bedside at the time of his death and and to whom Cardine dictated his "Final Testament," Cardine held that the difference between the value of a "long" note and a "regular" note was the difference between the time it takes to pronounce a syllable the consists of a vowel plus consonant and a syllable that consists of a vowel only. Claire urged that chant directors should recruit someone to record this difference and show singers how short it is. Cardine never approved of any recorded performance purpotedly based on his teachings.

Cardine recognized that incorporating all the nuances shown in the adiastematic mss. according to his interpretation was nigh unto impossible and discouraged the attempt except in ideal circumstances.

We need not agree with Cardine 's ideas about note values or anything else; but those who claim to perform "according to the teachings of Cardine" should either embrace his reported ideas or drop their claim.

In the Liber hymnarius Solesmes attempted to show all the nuances evident in the adiastematicmanuscripts. Choirs (monastic choirs, probably) complained that singers were doubling every note marked with an episema, with ludicrous results. So in subsequent recent books Solesmes stopped including the episemas.

My source for what I've written about Claire's statements is, Jean Claire, “Dom Eugene Cardine (1905-1988)" Revue gregorienne XVII (1989), 20.

I would do the notation like this: in melismas - short in sixteenth notes, long in eighth notes; outside of melismas - stemless black note head for long/syllabic time and sixteenth note for short. Some "tenuto" indicating expressive slowing chosen by me as an expressive nuance, an accent notation ">" indicating on a note an important crescendo in intensity and "ictus" marks marking some important downbeats to maintain an interesting flow.


the notation could be interpreted in a nuanced semiological style by considering the distinctions between long and short as not strictly proportional and using "rubato".

Maybe in the future I could spent time writing in this syle of modern notation using the edition of Patrick as a guide to where is long, where is short, where is grace, etc.

To Lincoln_Hein:
When I wrote something similar, people complained that it's too ornate and quoted "tra la sollicitudine" against me.
My version of Ave Maria is still on the first page of this thread

I think that sort of notation does a good job explaining proportional rhythm, at least visually and intellectually, but in practice I would have a very hard time singing from it, unless someone helped me learn it and I practiced more. I think that Mr. Williams' editions are easier for me to sing from, but this notation definitely has some interesting ideas as well.

I like how the three different colors are used, and I think if the neumes are included, it should be like this. I think the neumes would be beneficial in an earlier edition to teach people about where the proportional rhythm comes from and for people who read the neumes to compare for themselves, but in a final performing edition, they should be left out. Whatever notation is used should convey all the information of pitch and rhythm without having to include two other notations in the same score.

I would really like to see a notation which has the horizontal compactness of Mr. Williams' editions which comes from use of the podatus, but without using the episema for every single long note. If someone could design a notation, it could be made into a gregorio font in FontForge, and then it could be used with gabc.

I also think four staff lines are adequate and easier to read than five, and the traditional Do clef is preferable over the treble clef.

I link to the Graduale Renovatum on my page and find it to be an interesting edition. The most frequent criticism of my editions is that they are too cluttered with episemata. In the Ad te introit, the Graduale Renovatum shows the same rhythm at (ne)que and (exspe)ctant, apparently short-long-long, which cannot be justified from the triplex edition. The rhythm at the end of -que is short according to Laon or long according to St. Gall 376; I see no justification in those two manuscripts for short-long-long. At -ctant, why not use the initio debilis figure to notate what Cardine calls the special torculus?

I second OMagnumMysterium's request for a few recordings of the Renovatum editions. I have followed the Renovatum project for a while now, and would love to hear Royce's own interpretations of it. Thanks!

I can easily use four lines and "Do clef" with modern notes if this helps.

In a square notation I think it would be easier not to mark the long notes but to mark the short ones. It would be good if someone made a stylized "c" (for "celeriter") for the greogorio/gabc and of a reasonable size that could be placed above or below the short notes instead of putting an episema on the long ones.

That's vert similar to what I was about to post!

I think my ideal preference for notation of proportional rhythm would be the following:

Punctum for long
Diamond for short
Tiny liquescent or mini diamond for extra short/grace notes
Dotted punctum for long and a half? (like modern notation)
Punctum with episema for double long

But then perhaps short notes can still be connected with bars to aid legibility of neume groupings. It's a work in progress, but here is what I've been putting together the last few hours:

another option is similar to "fluxus notation" but with Laon neumes corrected in some places (here I put the two pes initio debilis indicated by st gall.):

I prefer this last notation you posted here Patrick than the usual with all those visually unkward episemas.

I'm not a fan of "Novalaon" style. It's not very good at depicting the pitches of some of the notes; one still needs to have a prior knowledge of the melody to use it. At least that is how it sounds to me.

Some updates and improvements to the "pes rotundus", the "pes initio debilis", the "quick torculus with long last note", the "quick clivis" and the "quick clivis beginning in oriscus":



With the last alterations I made I can't see any ambiguous melodic height, to me the notes are clear in terms of pitch.

If you are able to read laon fluently it is quite clear, with the distinctions between uncinus and punctum, short clivis X long clivis, short pes X long pes, short torculus x long torculus.

From the novalaon I can sing more fluently differentiating the proportions (short x long, double long and grace notes) than with a triplex edition (either with neumes and square notation or neumes and modern notation) and than modern notation.

I also think novalaon is better than fluxus notation and than lagall notation, and more clean than the edition of Patrick with all those episema.

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.