Advisable to sing chant without neums?
-
Hello everyone,
My choir director thinks we should not sing using the neumatic notation. She thinks the neums may be a turn off to potential new singers. I tried to explain that the neumatic notation has its own unique nuances, and while there are different schools of chant interpretation, I didn't know of a school that would recommend to not use the neums and instead use a production using modern notation.
What do you think about this?
I appreciate any insights you can give me.
In Christ... -
As far as I can tell, the contemporary concensus of leaders and singers of chant is in favor of neumatic notation, specifically that of the 1908 Graduale. But this must not have been a uniform position in the 1st half of the 20th century since there are many extant chant editions of the Graduale and Liber Usualis in modern notation from that period.
-
Umnnhhhh....
Singers, by definition, learn "code" which is the notation, whether modern or ancient.
I would think that learning TWO codes would be a point of pride for singers.
Conversely, is your choir director (undoubtedly a loving and gentle soul, as are all of us) saying that your choir is too.......ahhhh.........dim.......to learn a new code? -
Notes are letters; neumes are words. The note groupings have musical--and verbal--significance.
-
" The note groupings have musical--and verbal--significance." which are signs that are noticeably absent in modern music, making chant much easier to sing for the singer.
You've got it, Kathy! -
I often gave my choir the choice, printing the modern notation from the Graduale accompaniment books on one side and the neumatic notation on the other. Eventually, most of them came to see the ease of the neumatic notation.
-
It's time for a little creativity. I've also done pages which have both notations. Curious people will look at the differences between them. I also have some songs where I've shown people that the modern notation is not ACTUALLY the way we sing it, but the modern-notation writer was forced to try to smash chant into regular measures. People start realizing that maybe modern notation isn't the perfect solution to everything.
Of course, I also point out that you have to switch to modern notation as soon as you want to do harmonies. Let's be fair.
I've done a couple of workshops where I just showed people the basics of chant notation, relying heavily on melodies that they've already sung for many years. They quickly realize that it's not complicated at all.
Supporting the choir director's edict doesn't mean you can't educate people. Brick by brick. -
I'm curious: does anyone teach by demonstration and forget about notation altogether?
-
Even the blind sing and play from music. It's very useful.
-
Doug:
Especially with children. -
Absolutely keep square notation, even if you add modern. The five-line staff, where note positions are associated with absolute pitches, does not lend itself to the movable-Do system used in singing works of chant.
If some of your singers are experienced with the five-line staff, and have good enough pitch memory, so that they have a strong sense of absolute ("perfect") pitch, trying to make them disregard that -- trying to sing movable-Do with the five-line staff -- can be confusing and annoying. Let them use standard chant notation.
I think people are better off keeping the two systems separate: modern notation for pieces with a fixed pitch range, and four-line notation for movable-Do pieces. -
Well, wait now, chronak.
I agree with your conclusion, just not your reasoning. There's a ton of music written on the five-line staff that does lend itself to the movable-Do system - from the Renaissance to the present day.
And also, much of the music of the Renaissance (Palestrina, etc.) was written on the five-line staff in various keys, but we don't think that those pieces were necessarily conceived to be performed in those keys - so it is always acceptable to transpose those pieces to keys that work better for your choir (or that work better for the other pieces around it in Mass or concert) - much like chants in an F-clef versus a C-clef - it didn't really mean much to choosing a starting pitch as other issues like range, tessitura, etc.
Finally, from experience working with a few people with perfect pitch and musical training, it's just as difficult (or not difficult depending on their transposition skills) for them to deal with their perfect pitch issues on a four-line staff as it is on the five-line staff - because whether the line the C-clef is on is Do (and happens to be sung as a Bb) - or the third line of the five-line staff with a key signature of two flats is Do (and happens to be sung as an Ab) - they've still got work to do that they don't when they read a piece that's being sung in the key in which its written.
I've always been kind of thankful I don't have perfect pitch. -
My experience has been that "actual pitch" (where the C-clef line is a c) is a good default option for pitching chant, to be changed when the tessitura of the chant and that of the singers don't agree.
-
But much of that music was NOT written for the five line staff in its current usage. Renaissance and quite a ways beyond.
-
There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of chant in modern (five-lines, round notes) notation.... IF (if if if if if) it was engraved in such a way as to communicate all the musical information contained in the original notation, without adding anything that is inappropriate.
But, um.... anyone know of even a single edition that accomplishes that? -
Worship III accomplishes some of this, with the use of ties and horizontal episemas.
-
I introduced a group of high school students to square neum chant notation, and their comment was, "Why did they change it? This is SO much easier!" They think that minimally modern notation should have kept the "custos" at the end of each line, considering that nowadays music publishers don't even give us the courtesy of conveniently-located page-turns... :)
-
I really want this to be true, actually.
I think people who are concerned with spreading the chant far and wide should encourage the printing of good modern-notation editions, and the development of a system to accurately translate four-line squarenotes into five-line roundnotes. I think it would go a long way toward making people more comfortable with it. -
I've found that the melody in the Solesmes organ harmonizations of the Gradale, when separated out from its harmony, follows a set of conventions that convey nearly all of the information, the barlines, quilisma, salicus, pressus, etc.
-
So...would anyone advise a choir director to utilize ONLY a modern notation, a modern notation that does not make clear all of the rhythm markings of the neumatic notation, in directing a chant choir?
By the way, thank you for your help. -
I've been avoiding chiming in on this one, but I do feel it necessary to point out that the square notes notation in the Solesmes editions is modern notation for chant. Although it is based on historical models it is a much more recent innovation than conventional 5-line notation. I know this is a matter of semantics, but I think an important distinction nonetheless.
With new developments in quadratic notations that increasingly reflect information conveyed by the staffless neumes of the earliest manuscripts, I am confident that this will become the new standard in the future. In the meantime, I don't see any problem with using rotund notation for pitch as long as the singers know how the music "goes." -
I would not recommend that. It seems it would make it very difficult to get it to sound like chant usually sounds. If chant sounds different from regular music, it needs to look different. Whether this different = on a four-line staff in neumes or on a five-line staff with clear transcriptions of the neumes, I don't think is a huge issue. Except for simple hymns (i.e. Ubi Caritas, Pange Lingua, Pater Noster - maybe the Salva Regina), dots on a regular staff isn't going to cut it for Introits and Communions - definitely not for Graduals and Offertories.
-
Thank you SkirpR,
I'm the only one who usually sings the Propers. I do use neumatic notation.
What do you think about the Ordinary? That is the part that our director and our choir use modern notation without any reference to neumatic notation. -
The Bible should be translated into English so that everyone can read it.
Serious theologians should learn Greek and Hebrew.
Blogging software should be made with WYSIWYG editors and easy-to-use interfaces so that non-tech people can still build websites.
Serious web developers should learn HTML, CSS, PHP, and Javascript.
Chants should be available in five-lined round notes, so that people without the time or inclination to learn traditional chant notation can still sing good music.
Serious church musicians should learn to read four-line square notes. -
Chant CANNOT work on 5 lines. Chant is built on two intervals of a fourth.
The fifth line extends the staff by three pitches, so you end up with a double do or double fa on the staff instead of just one do and fa. Since chant melodies are almost all written within the constraints of 4 lines, the extra line added is there and doing nothing. So, where do you add it? At the bottom or the top?
How then, does the fifth line have any practical purpose?
All of the Ordinary chants are available in either square or round notes. Only serious church musicians should be singing the Propers, so why bother? Do that and we end up with the same miserable cantors trying to sing chant just as badly! -
There are several reasons to prefer the square notation. The neume is the unit of melody in chant; Medieval theorists spoke of sing the neume with a single stroke of the breath. This entity is much more easily seen in the square notation than in the modern notation (whether in eighth notes or stemless note heads). Analysis shows that most frequently the main structural note of the neume is its first note; the second and third notes are structurally subordinate.
The overall shape of the melody is much more easily grasped by the eye at a glance in the neumatic notation, while the succession of eighth notes of modern notation looks like nothing more than a succession of undifferentiated pulses. It is true that the same basic information is included, when the modern notation indicates the neumatic grouping by slurs, still in the process of reading the notation at performance tempo, this is not quite adequate for easily grasping the shape.
In square notation, double notes are indicated by a dot immediately adjacent to the note doubled. In modern notation, they are indicated by a quarter note in contrast with the eighth note value of the basic pulse. The absence of a flag at the end of the stem is not so easily perceived as the dot next to the note, and my choir, when they have to sing from modern notation, often miss the double notes.
The square notation is not perfect for indicating the phrase rhythm, however. Sometimes my choir will sing the successive square notes as no more than successive individual pulses. At that point, I close the book (they all sing from the same large choir book) and write the melody in St. Gall neumes on the blackboard and ask them to sing it from that notation. It is a very flexible and cursive notation, and they immediately begin to sing the melody more flexibly. The neumatic groupings are inescapable in this notation. The choir keeps the flexibility when they go back to the square notation.
It was said that the square notation is a modern notation; that is only partly true (It was a modern notation in twelfth-century manuscripts). What is really modern is that it is a typeface for printing, in contrast with a style of notation for handwriting. Katherine Bergeron has placed Solesmes's development of the typeface for printing in the context of the arts and crafts movement, which included fine printing. This typeface is really elegant; this might not be very evident until it is compared with its predecessor notations in the nineteenth century, which are crude and clumsy. -
Dr. M alludes to a great point:
Chant transcribed into unmetered eighth notes is awful.
Thankfully, there are stemless note editions these days, which solve part of the problem.
One of the problems, IMO, with engravers of modern-transcriptions of chant is their over-familiarity with the rules of normal notation, and their unwillingness to break them. The flagged-eighth note chant editions are a strong symptom of that mindset. The inability/unwillingness to borrow aspects of squarenote notation is another.
I think it's possible, though- and potentially well worth the effort.
But that has to do with making the choice to create those editions.
Talking about the choice of which edition to read- use the real ones. Once you take the time to learn/teach it, it's easier to read and more likely to produce the right sound. More importantly, if you limit yourself only to round note editions, you cut yourself off from mountains of literature that hasn't be translated into modern notation, and maybe never will. -
I think the Ordinary could work in modern notation - some of the simpler Masses better than others. I would encourage your fellow singers to learn how to read the neumes, starting slowly in the warm-ups maybe a little at a time, with easy syllabic chants with lots of punctums that aren't all that different from a string of round noteheads. But I don't see it as absolutely necessary to read chant on four lines. It is definitely preferable, though.
And just as an observation, Chris, you seem to have a talent for getting right to the questions where there's no clear consensus as to a right or wrong answer! In such matters, I tend to give moderate answers. This is one of those cases. The ideal is the neumatic notation developed specifically for chant, but you can get fair results without it - certainly better than an option of having no chant at all. -
Two points: (1) You work in an EF setting. Nobody there will be turned off by neumatic notation (quite the opposite). (2) There is no contemporary school of chant interpretation that relies on modern [5-line head-stem] notation.
-
Thank you again, everyone.
I'm really making an honest attempt to learn the chant. I now am understanding at least the basic landscape of chant today. I appreciate all of your insights.
In Christ... -
Assuming we're all aware that the St. Jean de Lalande Library contains An entire SECTION devoted to "Gregorian chant in modern notation."
There are also thousands of pages of organ accompaniments that employ modern notation.
The 1909 Weinmann Gradual is written on five staves. (Here's how to read the Weinmann book, since it is "pure" editio Vaticana.
In my humble view, modern editions of the chant cannot hold a candle to the Gregorian notation, because the Gregorian notation SHOWS YOU the phrasing, with "mountains and valleys" that appear right before your eyes. The only thing that takes a little getting used to is the porrectus ("water slide") neum. -
Analysis shows that most frequently the main structural note of the neume is its first note; the second and third notes are structurally subordinate.
Dr. Mahrt, can you please provide a reference to such analysis, or an example? In my experience the opposite seems to be true, that ornamental neumes move toward the structural notes found at or near the end of a neume. I say "or near" because not infrequently the final note of a neume steps or leaps down in anticipation of the first note of the next neume. Cardine and Kelly have both written about this phenomenon, and their theories seem to be supported by the evidence of the comparatively large and small neume forms in the Laon manuscript. Murray touches on this in Gregorian Chant According to the Manuscripts with two examples where the second note of a round pes, and one where the second note of the clivis-without-episema, is the main note of that neume (ex. 5 and 6, pp. 16-17). I know the classical Solesmes school advocates a lightening on the second note of a pes, but other than that what evidence is there for the "first note of a neume" theory you mention?
(By the way, I did not say that quadratic notation is a modern invention, but rather the square note notation of the current Solesmes books. I have premiered no fewer than 50 major choral works by contemporary composers, and I assure you that the default notation of Sibelius or Finale, i.e. the conventional notation of 19th century engraving, is no more "modern" than the 1908 Graduale.) -
Analysis shows that most frequently the main structural note of the neume is its first note; the second and third notes are structurally subordinate.In my experience the opposite seems to be true, that ornamental neumes move toward the structural notes found at or near the end of a neume.
This contradiction is interesting, and makes me think of similar contradiction in modern music - particularly music in compound meter (6/8, 9/8, 12/8). The strongest beats (or structural beat) in these measures are obviously those falling on 1, 4, 7, etc.:
1 2 3 4 5 6, etc.
but 2, 3 gather energy and move forward to 4... etc.
Saying that something is structural, and the following are subordinate does not mean they are not important, just important in a different way. Things that lead to something else need to be, I suppose, by nature, considered subordinate to it, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant - in fact, their mere existence serve to highlight the structural notes even more, even as they syphon some of their "energy" away. -
That Weinmann Gradual is... well, it's just weird.
-
Incantu:
I think I need to define structural notes; all of this is simply based upon my own analysis of chants. I find in rehearsal, if there is a passage that the choir is singing in an amorphous or purposeless way, I point out the main notes and how they are elaborated, and the performance immediately clears up. My analysis looks suspiciously like Schenker's theories of melodic elaboration, but I assure you I am not a Schenkerian. Rather, I would contend that fundamental aspects of melody are inherent in Western music beginning with Gregorian chant, and that Schenker put his finger upon some of it.
I see chants as elaborating an underpinning basic melodic structure. That structure is based upon the chain of thirds, A-C-D-F-a-c-e, which is then filled in by stepwise motion and elaborated by ornamental motion (arpeggiation; passing-notes, neighboring notes, and anticipations). For example, the communion chant for last Sunday (OF):
(Capital letters are the octave A-G below middle C; small letters are the octave a-g surrounding middle C; b=b-flat; h=b-natural)
C-D D-a-b a G c-h-c-a a a G F a F G-a-G F-G G a-b-a G F F-G F F F F F-G-a-b-a-F-G F a-a-G-a F-G-a F-F-E D-E-F-E-D-E E-D
A- men di-co vo- bis, quid-quid-o-ran-tes pe- ti- tis, cre- di-te qui- a ac-ci-pi-e- tis, et fi- et vo- bis.
Main notes:
C D a c a G a F a F D E D
Main notes fall in rhythmically strong positions, i.e., at the beginning of accented syllables, or at least new syllables.
Thus, to account for each syllable of the text containing non-main notes:
A: anticipation (the following D is stronger)
men: arpeggiation plus neighboring tone
co: neighboring note
vo: neighboring note plus arpeggiation
quidquid orantes: arpeggiation with passing note
petitis: neighboring notes
cre: neighboring note
di: passing note
te: anticipation
qui: neighboring note
e: arpeggiation with passing and neighboring notes
et: neighboring note
fi: arpeggiation plus passing note
et: passing note
vo: arpeggiation plus passing note ending with anticipation
I submit that this melodic analysis makes sense independent of the text, but that the main notes also fall on rhythmically strong positions. In addition, these main notes fall upon the first notes of neumes, which is what this somewhat overdrawn analysis is meant to show.
In both of Murray’s examples, the second note of the neume is what I would call an anticipation: it is the same pitch as that which follows upon a change of syllable, thus the following note is in the rhythmically strong position, and by my definition would be the structural note. I would certainly sing it that way, the stronger note on the change of syllable. -
Hello everyone. I thought I would chime into this interesting conversation with my own analysis of the structure pitches of this piece according to the principles of Gregorian Semiology.
For the full score from the Graduale Triplex and my one-note-to-a-syllable structural analysis, see Adam Bartlett's addition at the end of my comments.
(edited) -
Fr. Columba Kelly sent me a note telling me that he tried to enter his first CMAA web forum conversation, and I see that we have some technical difficulties above! Here is his analysis:
Structural Analysis of 'Amen dico vobis', Fr. Columba Kelly, OSB -
Wow. With that brief getting-thrown-in-the-deep-end of semiology, it makes me yearn for the long promised "critical edition" of the Graduale. I'm 30 years old. Hopefully in my lifetime?
-
According to Dom Saulnier at this summer's chant course, a critical edition is moving slowly and not being pursued much. If I remember correctly, he cited two reasons: the slow pace of approval (consider the antiphonale) and the increasing realization that 'the current graduale isn't so bad'.
Maybe another atendee can chime in on this question, but I know it was discussed at least twice.
I am loving the analysis direction of this thread, btw. -
To get to the original question, I'd chime in that
1) resistance to chant notation is often strongest with trained musicians who don't want to step out of their comfort zone. It's just something I've noticed time and again, and I say this as someone with a BM and MM in vocal performance.
2) no, I don't think it's generally advisable to read chant from modern notation. Chant notation is more specific to chant than modern notation. Others have given more reason than I have time to express, but I wanted to chime in what is most logical to me. If chant notation is limited and removed from the original aural tradition, modern notation (I mean neumes for the sake of this discussion) is more limited and removed. -
How exciting to have Fr. Kelly add his voice to this conversation after I so casually invoked his name. I was at first worried that I has misrepresented his theory about the main notes of neumes, particularly his reading of the Laon notation, but I am reassured by his analysis of "Amen, dico vobis quidquid" in that it so closely matches the way I had my schola sing it this week. One criticism of those who follow semiological methodology in their approach to chant performance is that so much is left up to the interpretation of the director. That I, with only a little study in the area, should come up with about the same analysis for this one chant, independently of a learned scholar (though, I must admit, heavily influenced by his theoretical writings) makes me think that this approach is not just fancy or conjecture, but that it is at least somewhat verifiable, and that its principles can be incorporated into a practical pedagogy as accessible to amateur singers (my choir is mostly volunteer) as the classical Solesmes method.
-
What a remarkable internet forum this is! Where else could you find William Mahrt and Columba Kelly each offering a syllable-by-syllable analysis of last Sunday's communion antiphon?
-
"makes me think that this approach is not just fancy or conjecture, but that it is at least somewhat verifiable, and that its principles can be incorporated into a practical pedagogy as accessible to amateur singers (my choir is mostly volunteer) as the classical Solesmes method."
This is an important question. As I've followed this discussion, gone back and read previous discussions, and continued my reading about 'Old Solesmes' and 'New Solesmes', I wonder if it is true.
Some sources state that Mocquereau's work is 'obsolete' and his influence is a 'prejudice'. I've read that since Solesmes' new work does not and will not have the old markings, that it will eventually fade away.
Is this the case?
The FSSP uses Mocquereau's approach.
The Ward Method is still taught, and I think, with the new freedom to celebrate the 1962 Missal will spread again to many school children.
The internet allows old books to be offered for free. The Liber Usualis is a PDF, and Mocquereau's work is a free PDF. Just as a practicality, I've read the free Mocquereau book, but I haven't been able to find a free Cardine book. (Although I've read his "last testament" speech.)
Is the existence of Semiology mainstream knowledge? I've been singing chant since the 2007. The priests involved know about the Liber Usualis, but have never mentioned anything about Semiology to me. My friends from an FSSP parish never mentioned Semiology.
Is there a work, accesible to the laity, explaining how to employ this Semiological approach? -
Dear Chris Ruckdeschel,
Before you make whatever choice you make, it might be useful to know exactly what the Vatican Edition is.
The Vatican Edition is (to this day) the only official edition of the Catholic Church.
Here are some items that explain about the Vatican Edition:
7 Videos (free)
Wagner Article (free)
How to read the Editio Vaticana (free)
Pierre Combe "The Restoration of Gregorian Chant" (not free) -
Hello Jeff,
I've watched the videos, which I enjoyed very much. The time and care I noticed in their production was impressive. Also, I think they provide a great resource for people like me: everyday parishioners interested in bringing chant to their parishes.
I can't access the Wagner Article from work, but I'll try to read it at home tonight. I've just printed out your article "How to read..."
The point of my post was not to highlight my own personal choice about Mocquereau vs. Semiology or anything else.
My goal was to show, from my perspective, how readily available I've found material supporting Mocquereau's work. Also, I wanted to point out that, again in my experience, semiology wasn't even on the radar for years.
I didn't mean to place a value judgment on my experience and choice. I only posted it as a genuine question I have.
In the development of chant today, at least in America, and considering the wealth of free resources available, will a semiological approach have the ready availability that an "Old Solesmes" approach already appears to have?
I can see that your wonderful project, however, will certainly have an impact. -
...and considering the wealth of free resources available, will a semiological approach have the ready availability that an "Old Solesmes" approach already appears to have?
Ask and you shall receive.
Fr. Columba Kelly has released the 3rd chapter of his book "Gregorian Chant Intonations and the Role of Rhetoric" into the commons for all to freely use. This chapter serves as a practical manual or method to interpreting Gregorian chant with semiological principles.
DOWNLOAD IT HERE -
This is very generous. Please thank Fr. Kelly for me. (Not that he released this only for me.)
-
Additionally, Fr. Kelly offers an article of his on the history of the "Solesmes Method" entitled "The Solesmes Method: Then and Now" which will certainly be pertinent to this conversation.
-
Adam,
Thank you for posting those articles.
As you know, I don't believe that Gregorian chant always emphasizes the tonic accent in the same way that, for example, Baroque composers treat the tonic accent. I believe the Gregorian treatment is (often) much more sophisticated and wonderful. I also have my doubts that the Latin tonic accent was necessarily as 'hard' as, for example, German speakers of the 19th century in, say, the 8th century.
In any event, I know that "curiosity killed the cat," but I would be very curious to see Fr. Columba's treatment of instances like this (which are numerous in the Gregorian repertoire):
. . . notice the tonic accent on áperis. -
You're certainly welcome to ask him, Jeffrey. You and I have had this conversation many times before and I'm not much inclined to get into it with you again. (I have a lot of work to do!)
The simple answer I will offer is that the tonic accent is treated as such in this case with a slight lengthening and a dynamic stress which initiates the movement that follows. Melismas on non-accented syllables offer no threat to semiology.
If anyone would like to understand more of what semiology is about, you now have a fantastic resource to do so! -
You're certainly welcome to ask him, Jeffrey. You and I have had this conversation many times before and I'm not much inclined to get into it with you.
The problem with the internet is tone is hard to understand. I wasn't looking to "get into it" with anyone. I apologize if you took that away from my inquiry. That was not my intent.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,126
- General Music Discussion7,604
- Job Openings1,309
- Management of Music Programs833
- Choral Matters519
- Church Documents and Rubrics504
- CMAA Notes291
- Events651
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony529
- Hymnody821
- Gregorian Chant: General2,583
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis354
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology57
- Vernacular Plainsong671
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant66
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire414
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,208
- Recordings222
- Music for Hispanic Ministry151
- Music Education: Children205
- Music Education: General214
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism723
- Amusements171
- General Discussion1,001
- Opinions113