The CMAA and its publications can only benefit from thoughtful criticism such as this. Thanks for making me aware of Custos.

Be sure to read also the final article in Custos ("Most Awful Surprise.") It's a sobering reminder of the dangers of our getting caught in a closed chant cheerleading bubble. Considering the surprised forum responses to David Goldman's First Things article (whose ideas about chant -accurate or not- are not that novel), engagement with those less than sympathetic to chant really is essential if we are to make headway in improving parish liturgies.

By “bubble” I meant a natural internet tendency to create a reality removed from on-the-ground actuality. It is an inevitable liability of a technology that now allows primarily people with like-minded goals to congregate. The hazard is much more prevalent at The New Liturgical Movement site, but I saw a bit of it in the surprised reactions to David Goldman’s First Things piece. (Good heavens, even Ted Marier knew that the Solesmes rhythmic method was on shaky historical grounds; he just thought it made practical and musical sense.)

I merely wished to say that it is healthy to engage people who don’t share our views regarding chant. Sometimes we learn things and often we plant seeds that in time will flourish. I actually find debates with “outsiders” on the forum to be encouraging. That means people are at least listening to what CMAA has to say. And yes, Jeffrey, I do read the employment horror stories that are shared on the forum. My heart goes out to these musicians.

Jeff O, thanks for your comments.
The three-volume Einfuehrung in die Interpretation des gregorianischen Chorals, the main semiology text book, says that accents are lengthened but they are not louder. They don't advocate slamming anything.
Apel is a great resource, of course, but I don't think he takes much account at all of the rhythmic data semiologists look at. His book predates that scholarly work, so I don't think he's up-to-date or helpful on questions of how chant treats accents.
awr

What you describe as the bubble does indeed live on NLM. Every time i post I prepare for the barrage from people who haven't entered a conventional parish in decades. One develops thick skin, believe me.

removed

Re: Will the REAL semiologists please stand up?

Cardine's pronouncements were sometimes contradictory. In one place he said that semiology told us which notes were "more" and which were "less," but did not tell us HOW MUCH more of less. Elsewhere he said that the difference between a syllabic beat and a neumatic beat were comparable to the difference in the duration of a syllable consisting of a vowel alone and that of a syllable consisting of a consonant plus a vowel.

Obviously, a number of erudite semiologists agree with the first of these pronouncements but not the second.

Cardine's approach to performance was to integerate the fruits of semiology into a living tradition of chant performance, taking care not to destroy the good aspects of this tradition in pursuit of all the right note values, revised and corrected!!! (See his "The Limits of Semiology, Revue gregorienne (1989).)

In the recordings of Alberto Turco (a student of Cardine) and those of Gloria Dei Cantores (whose style was developed under the guidance of Mary Berry, a Cardine student) the differences in note values are greater than Cardine said they ought to be. Does this mean that Turco and Pugsley are not "semiologists"? Of course not.

Semiology is not a school of chant interpretation analogous to the Mocquereau/Gajard school or the Pothier/David school.

Agustoni and Goschl's Einfuehrung in die Interpretation des gregorianischen Choral is a guide to interpretation based upon semiology, written by two distinguished semiologists. Other semiologists, on the other hand, may reject their suggestions without losing the right to call themselves "Semiologists."

And why can't word-accentualists acknowledge that the musical line may have its own rhythmic pattern, independent of the text? and that the two, equally respected in performance, can create a remarkable musical line? Are we just not willing to concede such complex musical thinking to this primitive form?

removed

removed

Jeff, also:

I was looking again at your comments above and I was a little curious about the following notions:

"Ah! So this must be the universal law that all Gregorian chant follows, throughout its 1600 years of composition"

"...the Gregorian repertoire is so vast, written by so many different composers over so many centuries..."

Are you familiar with The Advent Project? To be honest I haven't even read it yet (though it's on my list), but I know that the thesis is that the composition of the Mass Proper (the bulk of the Gregorian repertory) was not an evolutionary process that spanned centuries but actually was a deliberate and methodical composition project undertaken by a particular group over the course of a few years in the later 7th century (perhaps somewhat similar to the Chabanel Psalm Project? ;) The transmission of the repertory is clearly a different story, but this thesis would seem to suggest that at least some "universal laws" (of at least the Mass Proper) can be discerned through adequate research.

removed

yes, but just to be clear: the theory of Mocquereau is not subsumed within the ictus and its placement. that's just a tool.

@Jeff O.:

To summarize Semiology as simply "hammering the tonic accent" would indeed be very "juvenile". Agostoni and Göschl's "Einfuehrung" (translated C. Kelly) is 322 pages long, and "Gregorian Semiology" is 248. There's much much more to the picture than "hammering" tonic accents, a practice which is never encouraged according to Fr. Ruff above. I would really encourage you to take a look at these books which might help dispel this overly simplistic misunderstanding.

Re: "Type melodies"

"In a melisma, a very developed neume over a syllable, one has an initial impression that the melody follows its own laws and for the moment has loosened its connection to the word. To assume that would indeed be an error. Even a melisma is closely related to a word, is bound with that word. In the case of an original composition, that is to say, a musical setting that is created for a very specific set of words or text, the melismatic ornamentation underlines and helps one to taste an important word. ... This is even true for centonised pieces, that is to say, pieces that are a compilation of different formulas into a new organized unit, and even in the case of type melodies that make use of one melody type for several texts, the compositional procedure is profoundly influenced by the text. In centonisation, the melismatic formulas are for the most part selected carefully and are so artfully fused with each other that one has the impression that the original melody is set for this and no other text (Cf. Gr. Christus factus est.)" (p 5. Einfuehrung, Agostoni and Göschl)

This book is not a research text, but a practical book. There is certainly research to support it, but I'm not a researcher. I'm just sharing the perspective given in the "main semiology text book".

@JT:

Re: "This is exactly the view of Gajard, and student and successor of Mocq. And yet it is cited here as a central semiological principle."

To quote Jeff O. from above, Mocq states that "the musical phrase comes before the tonic accent". As I understand it this essentially means that melody comes before the text. As I understand Gajard made progress in this respect, giving a greater respect to the word than did Mocq.

Re: "The theory of Mocquereau is not subsumed within the ictus and its placement. that's just a tool."

As I understand it, Mocq's ictus is a tool for analyzing a Gregorian melody first, apart from its text. This is where the marriage of melody and text is "dissolved" from the semiological perspective.

@Mia

Semiologists ignore Mocq's ictus. Solesmes has discontinued its use in their publications since the early 1980's.

Yes, i know that this is the Sem view of Mocq but I've never found that in Mocq nor Gajard. Both of their books are online. I've read them and I just don't see this in either. Both emphasize unity of music and text, which I guess is why I've never been able to join the down-with-Mocq campaign. I can't but learn from him and Gajard.

removed

I posted my two cents about 'dissecting' on the post with Mr. Goldman, so no need to repeat it again. I will just offer you a poem I composed back in the 70's. Chant (and ALL art forms) are like a delicate flower.

THE BLOOM

The seed falls to earth
By wind and plan
Only to have met death
Should it prove to live on.

Through warmth of light
and cold of of night
The beat of rain...
Again, again.

Finally,
A bud appears

Try not pry the petal
So curious to see
What the full bloom flower
Is supposed to be.
For then you will have destroyed
The scent, not fully sweet
And the perfect maturing of beauty
Just wanting complete.

But love and understand and patiently forbear-
Only these will unfold the flower there.

Copyright © 1978 Francis Koerber All rights reserved.

Speaking for myself, I am glad for the discussions here of topics on which there is some disagreement. I see that as a positive, one which provides the most potential to let folk with more limited exposure to some of the main concepts gain at least a two sided view. So many times when we digest info, it is coming from a single source and we are not always allowed to weigh the information in the light of competing points of view, and not allowed the possibility, therefore, to draw our own conclusions based on a more complete understanding of the subject matter.

That said, I still really don't sense there is any real 'bickering.' For me that word is quite strong.

While it may or may not be true that a forum such as this is not the ideal venue to dissect the different schools of thought on chant performance and scholarship, it is nonetheless good to expose so many to some of the main issues and personalities involved at the center of the ongoing 'discussion.' I am here to learn. I don't want people to feel muzzled. Diplomatic, sure. Polite, of course. But please, keep the discussion challenging and lively.

It's strange how we ask questions of chant we would never ask about any other music, e.g. a Brandenburg Concerto. Do we need a pulse to stay together? of course! Can the chamber group speed up and slow down with infinite degrees of subtlety within this structure and still stay together? of course!

"While it may or may not be true that a forum such as this is not the ideal venue to dissect the different schools of thought on chant performance and scholarship, it is nonetheless good to expose so many to some of the main issues and personalities involved at the center of the ongoing 'discussion.' "

Yes, though perhaps better done in a discussion topic dedicated to that issue, rather than randomly strewn through every post about chant, as seems to be the general method here.

"It's strange how we ask questions of chant we would never ask about any other music, e.g. a Brandenburg Concerto. Do we need a pulse to stay together? of course! Can the chamber group speed up and slow down with infinite degrees of subtlety within this structure and still stay together? of course!"

If chant is "sung speech", and I contend that it is, then there is as much of a need for a rhythmic pulse in singing chant as there is in asking a group of people to speak a text together. Congregations recite the Creed and much of the liturgy every week together in perfect sync, following the rhythm of speech. There is no pulse. Asking them to use one would be absurd. Gregorian chant and a Brandenburg Concerto are comparing apples to oranges. One is unison melody and the other an orchestral suite.

"I simply want to know how the melisma can be together without the basic musical pulse, especially for a group of large number."

Mia, take a look at Chapter 9 in Gregorian Semiology entitled "The Neumatic Break" (sometimes called Graphic Separation). This is the key to the melisma, and really the semiological understanding of chant. The basic chant is syllabic, and a more ornamented chant is simply that, an ornamentation of a basic pitch or two as found in syllabic chant. Melismas use the same melodic conventions as in ornamented syllabic chant which is very clear in the St. Gall and Laon notations with an understanding of the "neumatic break", which shows the structural pitches of a melisma. With an understanding of the structure pitches of a melisma and a proper understanding of how these structure pitches are ornamented it is not difficult at all for a schola to stay together.

Jeffrey--

Firstly, I hope I don't have to clarify that my post was directed to Jeff O., not Jeff T., in response to his lengthy post directed to me above. I hope this was clear. So, in effect, I wasn't directing anything toward you or implying anything about you at all. I did cite your comment as an example of the many similar comments that are found all over this forum.

Secondly, I do not like the words that you are putting in my mouth. They certainly are not mine. I am not sure where you get notions like "head-in-the-sand fool", "pervasive ignorance", or "mental block" but I can tell you that I will not engage in conversations that use language like this.

The only other thing that I have in response to your comment is that the first volume of Augostoni and Göschl, the main semiology textbook according to Fr. Ruff above, is available in English translation thanks to Fr. Columba Kelly. See above for a link to this book.

This comment has nothing to do with research.

Correct. The comment in question doesn't.

This is not scholarly debate.

It is not.

...flies in the face of the chant interpretation as it is currently being taught by Solesmes

Correct.

If these sort of statements are left without accountability I fear that progress will not be made.

This is my belief.

"equal importance should be given to both the sacred text and the Gregorian melody"--Preface to the Liber Hymnarius

IMO the best interpretations of chant respect this principle, no matter what theory is lurking in the background.

Can any choir singing according to the "classical Solesmes" or "Mocquereau" method aspire to do better than Dom Gajard directing the monks of Solesmes? But listen to a recording of his choir...go and download Memento verbi tui at Jogueschant and tell me that the text is not treated with the utmost respect, never sacrificing good diction even where the melody appears to be going in a different direction than the text ("Domine," "Gloria" at the Gloria Patri)...

And let's look at the best choirs who base their practice on semiological research: dom Jean Claire's, Alberto Turco's, Jaan Eik Tulve's: don't we hear eminent musical sense, avoiding the pitfalls of getting lost in every episema and neumatic break or not seeing the phrase for the words?

Cardine wrote something about having to go beyond the neumes...I would say that Gajard went beyond Le Nombre Musicale. Let the chant speak to us on its own terms; consider it as a whole without getting lost in analysis.

Richard Rice gives what seems to me to be excellent advice in the final pages of The Parish Book of Chant:

"A gently flowing, steady musical rhythm need not be disrupted in an effort to convey the Latin accent; but neither should the music obscure the meaning of the text, which is, after all, the essence of the prayer it seeks to enliven."

Who could disagree with that?

Adam, there is a huge difference between a Creed and a Gradual, and between settings of the Creed, for that matter, but I'm tired of this supposed debate which has gone on for sixty years and not helped a single parish get on the right track, so I'm out.

This is a thrilling direction to a riveting thread. In the past, people have gone to war over these issues. We can't afford to have such a thing now, not with such progress on all fronts.