Printed Graduale based on semiological principles
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Does anyone know if there is a PRINTED BOOK, containing the chants of the Graduale, done according to "semiological" principles ?? (what Cardine referred to as "Gregorian diplomatics")

    The Liber Usualis, Triplex, 1908 Graduel Neumé, etc. are all based on the Editio Vaticana (needless to say, books based on the Editio Vaticana don't enter the discussion).

    I'm looking to find a printed Graduale, done according to semiological principles.

    Hermesdorff published a book in 1876 based on the ancient MSS (with adiastematic neumes written above medieval neumes), but it's incomplete.... (at one point, there was also talk of a Solesmes "critical edition," but I'm not holding my breath on this one, because one of the monks working on it has admitted it "probably will never be finished").
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,148
    Jeff, 'If you find this, I would be very interested. When I was in France recently, there was a discussion of this kind of book but I was not able to follow the end of the discussion. I think that I heard that there was one being worked on, but I heard no more.

    Bonne chance,
    Kevin
  • This isn't really a printed Graduale, so I don't know if it's what you are looking for: Gregor und Taube website.
  • Although not a "printed Graduale", of course anything published by Solesmes since 1981 is based upon Semiological principles. Looking at some of the responsories in the Liber Hymnarius and the new Antiphonale Romanum are very nice studies that will come close.

    at one point, there was also talk of a Solesmes "critical edition," but I'm not holding my breath on this one, because one of the monks working on it has admitted it "probably will never be finished"


    If the talk "at one point" which you mention refers to the mandate of Sacrosanctum Concilium, then it is not a "critical edition" but a "more critical edition" that is spoken of. This most definitely will happen, although we're certainly not sure of when it will be. There's great reason to hope that this will be the publication that will follow Solesmes current Antiphonale project. I think that most people have given up on the notion that a true "critical edition" is even conceivable anymore. From trusted sources I've talked to, Solesmes has had the "more critical edition" done for sometime, but it hasn't gotten through Vatican bureaucracy in order to be published and implemented!
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    A Dutchman created the "Lagall" gradual based on Laon and St. Gall neumes many years ago. I have a copy. It is four-line square-note notation, but with the width of each notehead varying according to its approximate rhythmic value. Cardine in fact didn't like this because he thought it was way too systematized and could give the impression that you don't need artistry or musicality, just mathematically exact rhythmic values. My thought is that it depends on how you use the book - you could use these note widths as a rough guide, but then make music with it by good sense and artistry etc. I think "Lagall" is useful for beginners who aren't sure that they're decoding the Laon and St. Gall neumes in the Triplex correctly - to double check your reading of which notes are lengthened or slowed down or emphasized.
    Fr. Anthony, OSB
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    There are these scores in Fluxus notation that combine the "corrected" melodies of the Lagal Graduale with a transcription of the rhythmic forms of the St. Gall notation. However, these editions fail to compensate for the fact that St. Gall scribes frequently used a sort of shorthand, writing the cursive (light) form of neumes elements when it would be understood from context that that they should be sung as longs. The G&T editions are probably more reliable in that the quadratic transcriptions seem to reflect some editorial adjustments. As far as I know, however, there is no PRINTED edition. Sadly, the closest we have is the Graduale Triplex. I'm currently working on a transcription of the seven "ad libitum" communions, and even that is turning out to be a fairly substantial project. The fact that the recent Antiphonale Monasticum falls short of containing the most detailed semiological information suggests that a revised Gradule will be a long time coming.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    smvanroode,

    I am aware of their work, and it's considerable. As you note, it's not a printed edition.

    However, unless I am mistaken (I might be), I believe their work is actually based on the Editio Vaticana (Pothier's 1868 Edition), with a few special neumes introduced as well as well as a few TI (vs. DO or TE) reciting notes.
  • The talk "at one point" of a Solesmes critical edition goes back at least to the 1950s at which time certain volumes were already in preparation. See for example Dom Cardine's piece, in Gregorian Review Vol 5, No 1 (1958), and also Dom Rembert Weakland's somewhat skeptical perspective in Caecilia (Summer 1962).
  • ...with regard to the lagall graduale, i seem to remember a review of it in JAMS some time ago....the reception of the 'mensural' lagall graduale by scholars and professors of music was...perhaps not what the editor had hoped...but perhaps, given time, scholars will begin to accept this book.

    i don't think one can easily purchase this lagall graduale at the moment...or am i wrong? where can this be purchased?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    However, unless I am mistaken (I might be), I believe their work is actually based on the Editio Vaticana (Pothier's 1868 Edition), with a few special neumes introduced as well as well as a few TI (vs. DO or TE) reciting notes.
    .

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that you are mistaken. After all, the pitches need to be gotten from somewhere and at some point any editor needs to decide which source to follow. However, comparison to the Vatican Edition will reveal considerable melodic variants which, to my eye, appear to be influenced by (or at least in agreement with) the earliest manuscripts.

    G&T is obviously a work in progress. Some examples lack paleography above the staff, and others show a greater or lesser number of modified quadratic forms. However, I would say that across the board there are more than a "few special neumes" to be found. For any given chant almost every neume (and by this I mean all the notes on any one syllable) contains information not found in the Vatican or other quadratic editions. The oriscus, strophicus, liquescents, and "initio debilis" neumes will be most obvious, but there is also the deliberate use of regular square notes for ascending and descending notes that are long, and rhomboid forms for their short counterparts. More subtle might be the consistent differentiation between the virga, virga with episema, and the virga strata (stems to the left). There are still some problems to be solved in these editions, but they're worth spending some time with.
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Hello chant friends,
    Gregor und Taube is based on the melodic reconstruction working group which publishes its results in each issue of Beitraege zur Gregorianik (published in Regensburg). They meet a few times a year for a week, put all the important manuscripts under the microscope, and then publish their results with critical apparatus. They've worked through all the Sundays and Feasts of the seasons and OT. And then Gregor und Taube puts their results into four-line notation, using all the new notation of the Liber Hymnarius.
    Fr. Anthony, OSB
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Thank you all for these comments.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I couldn't find Propers for Immaculate Conception in Gregor und Taube. (I'm especially interested in looking at the Communio, 'Gloriosa.' )
    Does anyone know whether it is there?
    Also, from a few chants I looked at, it seems to be that the St. Gall neums in Gregor und Taube are just the same as thsoe in Triplex, does anyone find discrepancies? Thanks.
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    Mia,
    the neums in Gregor und Taube are very similar, but not identical to those in Graduale Triplex. They are a sort of collation of St. Gall school, with some pedagogic addition of episemas (for example) which are true to semiological interpretation (or what could be called a semiological worldview) even though the sign might not be in any St. Gall ms. This is possible because one discovers, after much work with early notation, that they obviously didn't write out everything as a score for future generations - they wrote what they needed as reminders for themselves, also falling into notational conventions. All of this explains why G & T doesn't give reference to a specific St. Gall manuscript. You know the Germans wouldn't forget such a citation if there were one to give!
    Fr. Anthony
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Mia, today is Sunday. Are you planning on bulgogi?
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    > I couldn't find Propers for Immaculate Conception in Gregor und Taube.

    It's not there (yet). It will show up (eventually) as link G.12-08. That, the Transfiguration (G.08-06) and S. Joseph (G.03-19) are the three main liturgical days still missing.
  • Like Graduale Triplex, Gregor und Taube, too, seems to be preoccupied with the propers only. It is unfortunate because you sing each of them once or few (commons) times a year. The chants of ordinary would be sung much more frequently. Those pieces marked "X s." and, in part "XI s." apparently have been found in some of the adiastematic manuscripts. Therefore, a "Kyriale neumee" could be made. Is anybody working on such a project?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks dvalerio. It's tricky to decode the letters and numbers in the index.

    No, it's spagetti :-( I'll let you enjoy bulgogi. You are so lucky to have wife who can really cook it.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    @ Andris: Since the propers are normally sung by a choir, a variety of approaches may be taken to singing them with little impact on the congregation's participation. However, when it comes to the chants that belong to the assembly, it is probably desirable that there be some sort of standard practice (with only slight variation from place to place). I can only guess this is one reason that the ordinary chants have not received so much attention. Also, you won't find Missa de angelis in the manuscripts.
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    > Gregor und Taube, too, seems to be preoccupied with the propers only.

    The first file above the table (A. Lateinische Messgesänge) contains the chants for the ordinary of the Mass. It only includes Missa Mundi, Missa de Angelis, Missa Lux et Origo, Missa in Dominicis Adventu et Quadragesimae, Missa Alma Pater, Missa pro Defunctis, Credo I and Credo III, which is surely less than what you find in the GR, but is more than enough for a normal parish, and the site explicitly states this is still a proposal under discussion.

    It is true, though, that no St. Gall neums have been added to the square notation in that file, though the melodies and the neumatic elements have been revised.
  • dvalerio
    Posts: 341
    > It's tricky to decode the letters and numbers in the index.

    At first sight yes, but then it becomes clear:

    A Ordinary of the Mass
    B Advent and Christmastide
    C Lent
    D Easter season
    E Ordinary Time
    F Solemnities during Ordinary Time without a fixed date
    G Sanctoral
    H Apparently unused as yet
    I Mass for the dead

    Numbers refer to weeks; additional letters or additional numbers are added if there are several Masses; in the Sanctoral, numbers have the format month-day. Of course knowing a little bit of German will help you, otherwise I bet Google will be of assistance!
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thanks dvalerio. It helps. They wouldn't put them in random. (Time to review basic German !)
  • "The first file above the table (A. Lateinische Messgesänge) contains the chants for the ordinary of the Mass."

    Thank you, dvalerio. I had not noticed previously that, indeed, the notation has been enriched with more rhythmical information, even Missa de Angelis. Does anybody know what the little circles and semicircles on some notes mean?

    Too bad, that they did not put neumes there where available, and also the manuscript sources they have used.

    Incantu, most of the assemblies are not able to sing even Missa de Angelis. As far as the other ordinaries are concerned such "Kyriale neumee" would help the choirs who have ventured to learn them. The people in the pews might then follow what they have heard.
  • As for "Gregor und Taube": what are Mr. Stingl's neumatic sources for proprium missae? Sometimes he gives the source: often SG 381, once I met Angelica, but there is a number of chants (SG notation) I can't find out within the four "standard" MSS (C, E, G, G 376). Help!
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    The index of the Graduale Novum lists the mss. from which the paleography for each chant is taken. These are usually the same as G&T, but I can't say that that is always the case.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Since this year-old thread has suddenly popped back to life, it's worth mentioning for the record that JMO's original request has been fulfilled somewhat over the last year by the publication of the Graduale Novum.

    I say "somewhat," because unlike the Lagall gradual or even the Liber Hymnarius, the style of notation of the Graduale Novum is basically identical to the Vaticana. The melodies, however, have been revised according to insights derived at least in part from semiological analysis.
  • Incantu, I meant the chants where "Gregor und Taube" uses other mss that Graduale Novum. Can you list any other SG notation mss which I should consider?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    The Graduale Novum is not "based on semiological principles," but it does allow you to give a performance that is. At this point, the best we have is transcriptions of the manuscripts. However, there is a big difference between what the notation says and what it actuallymeans, which can only be inferred from context and familiarity with the centonized melodies. I'd love to make an edition of a small group of chants, but the issue of notation is not a small one. I'm not familiar with any one system that includes all the necessary information. G&T comes close, as does Fluxus notation, but again -- these are transcriptions and not performing editions.

    A for which mss. to look at, I'm not sure. If the G&T scores aren't taken from the Cantatorium, Hartker, Einsiedeln, SG339, or maybe 337, then I'm note sure where they are from. I'm not so familiar that I can recognize every St. Gall copyist at sight (though I am becoming familiar with a few of them). Don't forget some might be lifted from other chants. If in doubt about specific missing citations, why not ask Anton Stingl (anton.stingl@web.de) himself?
  • martin
    Posts: 19
    Hi,
    May I join in? I'm new around here, I'm from Amsterdam and have been using all of the above, specificly the Graduale Lagal by CF Hakkennes and Fluxus by Geert Maessen. I'm familiar with the orginal notations of the 10 century and shortcomings in transcriptions. Therefore, i wonder why Incantus above mentions seeing Fluxus NOT as a performing edition? That at least was the initial impetus of Geert, seeking to adapt all of the nuances in St. Gallen notation to the 4-line staff, thus creating a very informed simplex notation, for practical performance. I've known it for a long time already, and having joined his group 'Gregoriana' I dare say I see the practical use of it. Before, I had used the Gr. Triplex with lots of self-entered melodic corrections and the Gr. Lagal in which I had copied St. Gallen neumes. The benefit of Gr. Lagal lies also in the melodic corrections (not the last word on it, but he was among the very first published restituted chantbooks). Now, singing form Fluxus, I do no linger feel a need to change anything or add to it, just occasionally I ask him why this or that but that's work in progress for you.
    The other interesting fact about Fluxus is that Geert his worked along different guidelines than those followed by the group that published the Graduale Novum, as the latter look mostly to Beneventum which is good for major variants but the more numerous minor variants (an abundance of e-f and b-c melodic details!) that are more in line with St. Gallen are not evident in the Gr. Nov. so one would say it is in need of even further melodic restitution.
    Sadly, also the graphic forms in the square notation are limited in number and lacking detail and correspondance to the grouping of notes in the original a-diastematic notation so that reading from the Gr. Nov. produces a sort of dissociation, as the square notation and the neumes of St. Gallen written above do not always run the same course, for instance a group consisting of a torculus with episema on the last note and a tractulus is often written as a pes sub bipunctis which is a very different gesture, a flaring absence of oriscus, strophic, liquescents etc. so actually the square notation is quite poor in detail and often erratic.
    As Geert considers all these matters, Fluxus scores high as a very rich performance edition. If one is familiar with semiology, Fluxus makes it all very clear, as i said above, no need to copy neumes above or below, it's all there...
    regards, martin
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,017
    Welcome Martin! It is good to have you join us here, and I'm sure we all will benefit from your own experience and perspective.

    Chuck
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    the square notation and the neumes of St. Gallen written above do not always run the same course


    This is very true. Unfortunately the best rhythmic manuscripts do not contain precise pitches, and the best melodic sources do not indicate rhythm. Fortunately, it is usually possible to reconcile one with the other, but not in every case. It's like trying to make a flat map of the earth. There are different ways to solve this problem, but each one necessarily carries with it some type of distortion.

    the graphic forms in the square notation are limited in number and lacking detail

    It is my impression that the square notes in the GN are only to indicate pitch. They just as easily could have used round notes on a five line staff, alphabetical notation, solfege, Ward notation, etc. Square notes were used so that the pitches could more easily be associated with the neumes the intend to represent, but I believe the editors concede that this was not always possible.

    Therefore, i wonder why Incantus above mentions seeing Fluxus NOT as a performing edition?

    Well, it is not a performing edition at all in the strictest sense, in that most modern musicians would not be able to perform from these scores without significant instruction. Learning this notation is just about as involved as learning to read St. Gall neumes. The advantage, of course, is that it efficiently notates pitch, hypothetically eliminating the need to consult another melodic source.

    I just downloaded the recent collection of 10th century chants in Fluxus notation and will have to take a closer look at them. But my initial impression when I encountered this notation is that it reproduces exactly what is in the St. Gall manuscripts. This does not make for a "satisfactory" performing edition, because the St. Gall copyists were not always explicit in their indication of long and short notes, expecting that the proper rhythm would be clear from memory or from context. Also, although some obvious copyist errors may be corrected in the Fluxus scores (I'm not sure), I seem to recall that I came across at least some of them that were not. So while the Fluxus notation is an improvement over St. Gall, and the scores themselves are no worse, it still does not make for an ideal performing edition in my opinion.

    I'm very interested in hearing about your experience with Lagal. I don't own a copy (are they even available?), but from what I've seen it actually is an edition (were the editor has made editorial decisions about pitches as well as the relative length of notes), though still not a performing edition for the same reasons listed above.
  • martin
    Posts: 19
    Some remarks by Incantu as made above got me thinking, what are the requirements for a performance edition? What would be the most important elements one would like to convey by a state-of-the-art 'edition'? To give an example, as a follow-up on the huge succes of one of the earliest avaliable recordings of chants of Hildegard von Bingen by a prof. early music ensemble, to note: 'A Feather on the Breath of God' by Gothic Voices / Christopher Page, a performance edition prepared by C.P. was published. This is an edition in Volpiano font with slurs to indicate which notes fall under one neume. Where it informs of all proper pitches, it completely ignores all forms of ornamental neumes, thus no strophics, oriscus, quilisma. In other words, those elements that pertain to performance practice are left out, which comprises probably a lot of its special quality. This however makes the edition perfectly singable for all those who can read modern notation and sing, no need to get familiar with the specific nature of Hildegards music seen in its historic-cultural context as having evolved in a 'Gregorian' tradition of singing and ways of chant notation. If one approaches Hildegard from years of experience singing the Catholic liturgy with psalms and masses and monastic hours using 10th century notation as a basis, the ornaments found in the two extant sources fall into place. If one ignores the performance practice of medieval chant and sings from such an edition the rendering of the song may not be expected to anyway historically informed. Likewise, the barren pre 1960-editions of Early Baroque music in which the soloist was expected to dress things up according to his good taste (NB Corelli Opus V ) go well to illustrate a wide gap between very different conceptions of music and performance practice. In the way Gregorian chant is performed in our time we can hear the same extremes. What we can do with Corelli goes for Gregorian chant as well. Actually it is no wonder that the ornamental neumes are hardly noticeable if at all intented, as even supposed 'semiological performances' often fail to truly and musically convincingly integrate the ornaments in a line of chant. It is easy to point out the cause for such a bland state of affairs: ornamental neumes have a way of being swiped under the carpet and of disappearing from chantbooks. Including the fact that the larger number of 'minor variants' with the semitonal interplay is also not visible in most square notation, some very essential qualities have not received the attention they're due.

    Anyway Fluxus was intended as a 'simplex' notation performance edition, and has been recognized as such, albeit in small circles of those who probably read neumes anyway. I do not believe that it is necessarily 'bad' if a newbe needs a bit of basic instruction in order to sing along informedly. My own forays in the field of classical Indian vocal music (Dhrupad in my case) clearly demonstrated the need for more insights in typical embellishment in monodic modal melody. At the present state of affairs, I gather that Fluxus is the most advanced in reproducing the essentials for a HIP-approach. Then one also needs to embarge on a different approach of vocal exercise and voice production, modal tuning, articulation etc. which for the most are still underdeveloped. Providing scores like Fluxus is just the thing that can inform the cantor with the most appropriate means that stays as close to the gestalt and implied meaning of the graphs of St. Gallen. The chances to evade heavy, sluggish and equalistic singing are getting better and better.
  • martin
    Posts: 19
    hmm. I seem to have a tricky connection, as twice an answer got lost in cyberspace through some quirk or other, but my time's run out now,
    I'll just say that next time I'll compose my message elsewhere and then paste it in not to loose gumption in replying...
    But yes we use Fluxus all the time, though not exclusively, but apart from singing from manuscript copies for well-known chants, it's what we like best.
    regards, martin
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    That's a problem on this forum, especially if you are writing a long post. I always copy my comments before submitting them.

    I took a closer look at the Fluxus scores, and I'm going to post an article on www.euouae.com in the future on their shortcomings in terms of 1) inconsistent transcription of frequently used melodic formulas, 2) lack of differentiation between neume forms that require a different execution, specifically the different versions of the torculus 3) the use of redundant indications for notes of length. (I also suspect, based on these other three issues, that there may be cases where 4) copyist errors are carried over into the Fluxus scores, but I have not yet found an example of this).

    Otherwise, this is a truly brilliant notational system, and perhaps the best available scores for those who already have an extensive knowledge of chant performance practice and St. Gall notation.
  • martin
    Posts: 19
    Just tried to quirk me again, the moment i push add your comments it does not know me anymore and tells me I have to log in! Phooey! Anyway, log in again and try again to paste it in quick enough!

    How I got in to Fluxus and more:

    In 1986 (I was born in 1961) I started having 1 on 1 lessons in Classical Indian Vocal and I joined the Amsterdam Schola Cantorum, led by Wim van Gerven, who had followed the full semiology course in Essen with Joppich et al. That's where I met Geert Maessen. In the summer of 1988 I followed a course given by Dominique Vellard and Marie-Noël Colette (resp. singer, director of Ens. Gilles Binchois and musicologist, former student of Dom Cardine) and after that I quit the Schola to go it alone. A little later I teamed up with another singer, and for some five years we worked and performed together, after which my partner moved to England. Somewhere around 2000 I got back in contact with Geert, we both enjoyed long talks about melodic restitution and performance practice and I made some appearance as a guest musician in his programmes with 'Gregoriana'. Then, after I translated some of his articles, it came about that I joined his 3-men band making it a quartet, which is also a lot easier to split in two halves when singing psalms.

    We mostly sing from Geert's own Fluxus scores, and since he has been going at it for almost ten years now he has covered quite a bit of ground. Sometimes we use other sources, such as the Antifonale Monasticum for some antiphons. For those who want to see, read and hear more:
    click here (main page directs to English) An online version of his 'Scores for tenth century Chant', a selection of Fluxus scores with a new introduction can be found here, as well as many video's and link to a series of weekly radio-programmes Geert has been doing for almost a year now (see > Bonum est < , Concertzender)


    A few remarks then about working with Fluxus.

    1. Reading Fluxus should basically not pose any problem to any musical person who is maybe already familiar with square notation and has a basic knowledge of 10-century St. Gallen notation. However, an experienced singer who had previously used other books, will be faced with many surprising novelties when Fluxus is read for the first time. In varying degrees, there might be a little clash between a memorized bit of chant and how the same phrase, note, neume, is written in Fluxus. I suppose the Graduale Novum as well as Fluxus have to be read most attentively checking one's self that you don't sing from memory but what is really written there. Now a singer who has only had the Gr.Rom, Lib. Usu. or better, the Gr.Tr. will have to make some big jumps here and there, especially III and VIII mode have changed their melodic appearance with the tenor of B reinstated instead of the later C. So, if, like myself, you have been aware of various types of correction that may have to be apllied to the musical text of the Gr. Rom 1908 and then the same old wine in a new flask 1974 and the Triplex in 1979, looking up in your new copy of Gr. Novum or a Fluxus score, you may again find minor variances here and there. No big jumps like in mode 3 or 8 but all kinds of small stuff. Some of these minor variants as they appear in Fluxus is the porrectus with supposed equitone repercussion (clivis and virga in one joined graph) which is in many instances involved with semitones instead of equitones. In very well-known chants this is easily overlooked or ignored and as it is much easier to follow one's memory than to reprogram, caveat cantor! Sometimes, a different note may hurt one's feelings, it does not feel right, refusal, stubbornnes, it is not always easy to adjust to a proposed change of tradition.

    2. Concerning the graphic part: what you is see is what you get. Basically, there is little or no interpretation on Geert's part as far as the graphic representation, he methodically transfers the St. Gallen neumes onto the 4-line staff as is. What is connected in one joined graph in St.G is exactly copied, with all nuances respected. This is a relief from working with all previous editions, where the square notation often deviates from the grouping in St.G. In most recent editions, like the G.Nov. the focus has been on restitution/melodic correction. In this case, at the cost of everything else. In Fluxus, the notation itself makes it easier to implement the proposed restitutions as the graphic rendering involves all of the ornamental neumes and nuances. Evidently, Fluxus poses the greater challenge, as its reader is faced with all the details that relate directly to performance practice, and so is pushed to make some dicissions about how to handle it all coherently. Methinks this is the most difficult part of the matter, which has up to now has been too little discussed. Performance practice: what kind of voice production, intonation to bring out the modality, the art of embellishing monophonic modal chant, how to sing a quilisma, this or that kind of oriscus, what to do with strophic notes, only rhythmical or also a melodic movement (a specific kind of quick inflexion?) and why not sing the last note of a pressus major as a short note, as it is a dot? Instances of a pres. maj. can be found with tractuli in stead of dots, for instance, and not always to indicate a lower note when it is a bit slanted, etc. etc.

    so far for now, regards, martin
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Exactly. So the current Fluxus scores are no more reliable than the imperfect St Gall manuscripts they are transcribing. Really, the only difference is that the former also indicates pitch. With more thorough editing, though, this type of notation could be used to create a more clear performing edition, which included rhythmic clarifications from other manuscripts, and correction of copyist errors and omissions.
  • martin
    Posts: 19
    When I described part of Gert's method of transcription, to wit, that no interpretation is involved in the transfer to the 4-line staff of the Cantatorium 339 neumes, I saw that as a positive bit of information. You seem to be of a diferent opinion, even going as far as labeling Skt. Gallen imperfect. When you mention errors and omissions, you mean the episemas in standard cadence formulas? This does not really bother me. If we take the ms as it is, and work with it from a larger experience and appreciation of the particulars of 10th century chant, at least we don't mix traditions into some self-invented amalgam that as such has never been sung anywhere historically.
    What in my vieuw is the most urgent need is to have a musical text that is corrected melodically so that both major and minor variants fit the neumes from, in this case, Skt. G. Cant. 339, that is structurally and in details coherent to the performance as indicated by the neumes. The minor variants are maybe the most interesting, and most in need of attention by contemporary singers. If all indications that can be read in the neumes for as an example the 8-th mode Easter Vigil tracts, are taken into account, it is evident that the Gr. Rom and its successors are in error in eliciting a lot of semitonal play on B-C. It is just so nice to see it all clearly written out in Fluxus.
    Clearly, since I left the Schola Cantorum I have been a free agent and have been able to develop what might be called a radical approach. No need to smoothe out and be diplomatic with choirmembers and interference from church eldermen. What initially inspired me to get involved with Gregorian chant was the 1984 recording of Dominique Vellard and Emmanuel Bonnardot, Veritas mea, Chant grégorien du soliste. I remember when having made a copy for the Schola director, Wim van Gerven, who admitted being both delighted and a more than a bit disturbed as it was clear to him that here for once, someone, at last, sung exactly as written, which takes care of his delighting, and with unarming honesty realise that this is a bit removed from his own approach and possibilities.

    The fact that the first impression, as was my own, is somewhat similar to bewilderment, is in all probability a very good sign. Might you, Inantu, and you, dear reader in general, have heared this landmark-recording? If not, and you're in for a treat, I think I could find a link where you can hear at least some of it, in which case let me know.
    regards to all, martin
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Not necessarily a bad thing at all. It's just why I call this a "transcription" and not an "edition," or at least not a performing edition. An editor publishing works of Bach, for example, will compare all manuscript sources, make choices among variants, correct any obvious errors, and possibly even add performance indications based on practices of the time that might not be assumed on the part of the modern interpreter.

    St. Gall is imperfect not because of copyist errors so much as that we are not the intended audience.

    I'd be interested in hearing! You can email me privately if you'd rather not post it.
  • martin
    Posts: 19
    here's a link to an overvieuw with short clips of the tracks, in a couple of days I should be able to post a link to a complete offertory.

    http://www.muziekweb.nl/Link/DJX0481