PBC Review, NPM Chant Newletter
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    removed
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Jeff,

    All the simple psalm tones, in all the modes, are pointed according to the accent. (My article treats only simple psalm tones.) Sometimes they move on the accent, sometimes they move one syllable before, sometimes (e.g. 8G) they move two syllables before. The accent is the orientation point in all cases. I'm trying to understand your point but I still don't. Do you dislike or disagree with the now standard way of pointing simple psalm tones? Do you have another way of pointing which isn't oriented around the accent? Again, how we sing it or what we lengthen is an entirely different issue, also for the Mode 2 mediant. Or are you proposing a different way of pointing the Latin Mode 2 mediant? Are you proposing not going up on the last accented syllable? Do you have another way of pointing it which is somehow affected by singing style?

    The point of my article is this: there are many ways of pointing English texts for the simple Gregorian tones, with pros and cons for each. I'd be very interested in hearing your feedback on how you point, what you think works, how you think we can preserve the Gregorian tones in English. I'd prefer that you not drag in all these side skirmishes about Baroque and semiology and slamming accents, since my article wasn't about any of that. Can we all work together to preserve Gregorian tones in English?

    How do you point English texts to simple Gregorian tones?

    Pax,
    awr
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,187
    Fr. Ruff,

    Regarding pointing the English texts to simple Gregorian psalm tones, I am very much attached to the model put forth by Bruce E. Ford in this short treatise. I won't summarize it here, but I was so convinced by the examples so as to use it exclusively for my own plainsong Responsorial Psalm settings (Year B, Year C).

    Admittedly, one has to live with them to get a feel for this flavor of adaptation, and they do benefit from being pointed "in longhand", but I believe this to be the most successful of the methods to which I've been exposed. I'd be very interested in what you think of it.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    removed
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Here's a rather dumb question, but I promised to pose it. Does the change of pitch in a flex usually fall on a word accent or is the final tone before the change of pitch an "accent"? I had a schola member call me to task on this but I thought I had read the Liber on this to mean that one does not change pitch if that syllable is "not to be accented". So, for example, the word "ejus". Where does one descend?
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    You descend on the syllable after the accent - so on eius, it would be on "ius."
    awr
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    removed
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,233
    To summarize Semiology as simply "hammering the tonic accent" would indeed be very "juvenile".

    Well, at least un-musical, although I think you both exaggerate a bit to make your points.

    In "regular Western" music-singing, it is understood that "accent" can also be created by "UN-accenting" other syllables--that is, singing them more softly.

    Seems to me that the same principle applies to Chant, too.
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    Jeff,

    I have made the decision to opt out of arguments like these on this forum because, among other things, I think I agree with your suggestion above that this seems to be an inappropriate and perhaps ineffective place to have these discussions. Also, due to the majority of the readership of this forum I wonder how many people have become excited about singing psalm tones after reading this thread. I have to say that posting a six and a half minute lecture doesn't seem to move this conversation in the right direction. If this forum isn't the right "forum" for these sorts of debates perhaps an article should be written, similar to Fr. Ruff's, and published. Do you concur?

    To conclude, I would be very interested to read an article that offered evidence that Gregorian composers ignored word accents. I have read articles (such as the attachment below) that have shown that there is ample evidence in the manuscripts that word accents are treated with an agogic accent of length, even when they are found on a single pitch and followed by melismas or more ornate neumes. I would love to read a scholarly rebuttal that argues otherwise.
    Joppich,G. & E121.pdf
    301K
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    removed
  • Adam Bartlett
    Posts: 533
    My apologies Jeff! After listening to the entire thing I tried to check the length and obviously miscalculated. I knew it seemed longer than that! I understand your opinion and appreciate your singing demonstrations, but if you ever do write an article that offers evidence from manuscripts please send it my way.
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Hmmm... Jeff is very animated in the audio clip, but it seems like the misunderstandings are remaining and even increasing, and things are getting imputed to me, or insinuated (a la"Doesn't he realize that...") so I think I'll stop here. I've said what I have to contribute on this thread and I hope some people find it useful.
    Peace,
    Fr. Anthony
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    removed
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,208
    Bruce E. Ford wrote:
    It is impossible to utter more than three syllables without placing stress on more than one of them. If you doubt what I say, try it. Even in languages in which the words do not have stress accents, no one can utter more than three syllables without placing stress on more than one of them. You can't get rid of stress.


    I've not de.LIB.erately attempted to find u.BIQ.uitously occurring examples of four or more syllables with only one accent ... but then I've always been considered somewhat of a MIN.imalist by nature. I suppose it's just the col.LAT.eral damage of being so il.LIT.erate. Kinda gives me an a.BOM.inable ab.DOM.inal pain. Just don't throw me in the a.QUAR-ium, please!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,229
    Well, this needs a little clarification for the skeptical.

    Bruce's dictum, though he didn't say it, starts counting from a stressed syllable. That is, you can't have three unstressed syllables after a stressed syllable; one of them will end up getting a stress.

    For "deliberately", "ubiquitously", "minimalist", and "abominable", the last syllable gets a secondary stress.

    The other words only have two syllables after the stressed one, so no secondary stress is needed.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,208
    When one says "deliberately attempted" there is no stress on the last syllable of "deliberately" - nor a stress on the first syllable of attempt. So you get four unstressed syllables between stresses. And, where I come from, we do not call the slight lengthening of the last syllable of a polysyllabic word taken in isolation - such as "deliberately" or "minimalist" - a (secondary) stress. That's why a dictionary will not put a stress (accent) on that last syllable. The English language, especially, has context-specific stress and flow. There is a distinction between accent (louder emphasis) and lengthening (no stress in volume) - just as in music there is a difference in accent and tenuto. But, I suppose we can agree to disagree on this!
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,229
    Well, there are varieties of experience among English speakers.

    I would scan the example you've given as "de/LIBerate/ly-att/TEMPted", with less stress on "-ly" than on "-LIB-".

    If the poets start recognizing five-syllable feet in English, I'll have to concede that you have won them over! :-)
Add a Comment