I don't know the answer, but I suspect that we would know more if we had the issues of Caecilia before 1930. A huge chunk of history is missing (digitally anyway).

There's something about the word equalist that I find odd. In all my years studying under people influenced by old Solesmes, I've never heard the word equalist used. Free rhythm, yes, but never equalist. Maybe this was a common term in the past.

Looking for an answer to this, I just ran across this from 1933 (p. 9 ff). It seems like another world, another planet. Maybe someone can explain this. It seems a bit "over the top" to regulate such things.

LETTER OF CARDINAL MARTINELLI, PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION OF
RrrES TO MONSIGNOR FRANCIS XAVIER HABERL, DOMESTIC PRELATE
AND PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIAT'ION OF ST. CECILIA IN GERMANY,
RATISBON, BAVARIA.

full letter

If I'm not mistaken the early issues (the first 30-40+ years) of Caecilia were in German, which is helpful for some readers but not for others.

Ah, but 'prayerful way' and 'enhancing the liturgy' are rather subjective reflexes, are they not. Granted, one would lay one's life on the line for the faith, but not for a rhythmic theory or interpretative idiom of chant. Still, most people would probably balk at allowing that a liturgical application of Ensemble Organum chant fit the above categories. Some on this forum, however, might find that such an interpretation did, in fact, fit the above categories and was quite inspiring. Most of us would have no trouble, though, at accepting a now-past Solesmes method as fitting, whilst others might well find it quaint and somewhat stylised. These distinctions and academic investigations, while not a matter of life and death, are of great importance. They do matter much in our pursuit of ever greater understanding of our heritage and how such an understanding may inform current liturgical chant and piety. One might even suggest that academic pursuit is very often a prayerful and spiritually rewarding act - the fruits of which often 'enhance the liturgy'.

The debate is important because, once the Chant people (campers?) have won the "chant and polyphony at Mass" argument, and don't have to contend with folkies and misguided populists any more, they still need to have something meaty to argue about.

I haven't spent much time attempting to study "new Solesmes" and semiology and all these trendy things the experts seem to care a lot about. But it seems like traditional Solesmes rhythm method has the benefit of being EASY TO LEARN AND SING. If we want more people to sing this stuff, it seems like poo-pooing the path of least resistance is a bad idea.

I'm often frustrated by discussions of performance practice; not because they're can't be interesting and useful, but because it's so difficult to establish communication about music through a written medium. When the subject is 20th century performance practice, though, we have the benefit of recordings to illustrate arguments and make them real to us (yes, I know there are pitfalls, but as long as we're aware of them they don't invalidate the approach). It would be interesting to know of research that has used recordings to enlighten our understanding of different plainsong schools. The catch with the late 19th/early 20th centuries that are the context of Fr. Ruff's enquiry is the early stage of the technology, which limited the distribution and utility of recording equipment and relied on fragile media. I remember an article in Sacred Music that made these points in respect of early 20th centrury French recordings of Gregorian chant. Nonetheless, it wouldn't take too many extant recordings to get a flavour of the schools, and it would be possible to work from fragments. So, too, in the absence of contemporarty material, we could make intelligent use of later recordings from places and people we have reason to believe stood within particular traditions, and so can stand proxy for earlier practice.

So many people make the argument that not using the traditional (i.e. Mocquereau) Solesmes method will necessarily sound very different. No doubt, that it is quite possible to achieve very different results when abandoning the traditional Solesmes method, but my skepticism of traditional Solesmes comes, not so much with regard to rhythmic interpretation of specific neumes, but mostly from placing of ictus and its effect on chironomy.

As a choral conductor (more so than any other niche of musician) by trade, I seem to think the most effective gesture one can have is completely logical and musical - without presuppositions on the part of your ensemble. That being said, following the stress of text in syllabic music (of all kinds, not just chant) still makes the most sense to me - and to follow me in leading a syllabic chant, nobody needs any ictuses in the music or any idea of counting backwards - just to know how to declaim Latin - which is something they need to know anyway! I hear plenty of people talking about the result being slamming this or that, and that's just not what I'm saying. You can cetainly admonish an unskilled choir from slamming the text stresses just as easily as you can for overemphasizing ictuses. (And it has occurred to me, at the risk of self-egrandizement, that maybe I'm just able to conduct in a way that avoids this slamming more than the average Joe-conductor/chironomist - I don't know, but it really doesn't seem like that much of a feat for me.)

So, the recording point Ian brings up gives me this hypothesis - I would wager that there do exist scholas/conductors who use traditional Solesmes whose results are more distant from the ideal "Solesmes sound," even when compared to scholas/conductors who do not use traditional Solesmes per se, but let it inform their performances.

Of course, if your disagreement is with the Solesmes sound itself, then fine, so be it. (I suppose I disagree in only one area - undulations - which seems from my understanding to be a by-product of the method, rather than a virtue in and of themselves). Ultimately, musicologically speaking, we'll never have just one "right" sound ideal for chant - but as a Church, we should have some sort of unified concept.

But I'm tired of people saying the only way to the Solesmes sound is with the traditional Solesmes method; and tired of having people make me feel inferior because I think I can get there in an easier, more elegant way that somehow does harm to the Church (or the goals of CMAA).

Isn't it enough in this age of instant digital recordings to agree on a sound ideal for liturgical purposes, and let good musicians get there how they please? And as for "easy to learn and sing," I really do think my way is easier and more natural - at least for those familiar with pronouncing Latin - and, really... shouldn't anybody who is jumping into this chant thing be able to speak the Latin first?

I'm also tired of hearing people say classical Solesmes and ictus don't agree with text and stress. I'll not argue whether it's authentic or not, but ictus gives a basic tool to an organized sound. Is 'music' an organized sound, which is different from 'noise' that is just a random one. Why do we have something called 'time sighatures' and 'measure bars' and how do they effect when you perform a piece of music? Do they harm the text? Do musicians give an accent on every down beat? Without learning how to count, I couldn't have advanced to play any modern music or even jazz, (I understand some people can just play them by ear only without any formal training) and without classic Solesmes method I would not have had easy and secure access to singing chant and even learn Semiology. ( My schola members, who have been singing chant with classic Solesmes method, and learned solfege and ictus, are now starting to learn to sing from ancient neums. And they are very interested in learning them.)


CMAA workshops offer chant classes with classical Solesmes method to give easy and solid basics for those who want to learn chant and pursue further studies. Those who don't feel it's necessary to get a special training outside their own natural ability to music, I guess they are very lucky. (Since I'm not one of them, without it, I wouldn't know how to teach chant to children and those who don't have much talent in music.)

"My understanding is that Mocquereau invented his method with the idea that the ictus is on the syllable of repose, not the accented syllable. So the ictus is related to the accent precisely in the sense that it does not fall on the accent. Among scholars his view hasn't held up well - I think there is a pretty strong consensus against Mocquereau."

This is an incorrect understanding of Mocquereau's notion of the ictus. Incorrect because it is a simplification.

The notion of Jesus as the Son of God hasn't "held up well" among scholars.

Your argument, on face value, doesn't mean much.

Mocquereau observed something fundamental about ALL rhythm. His notion is not "made up". ALL rhythm, ALL motion, is a departure and an arrival. Mocquereau didn't make this up. The ancient Greeks and Romans observed it. Mocquereau found it in their writings. Since he starts with an notion of rhythm that is objectively true, and applies it to chant, which has rhythm, he applied something true. Whether the idea of 'ictus' is the idea that some/any/most of the chanters of the distant past utilized is an interesting question.

It would be surprising, however, if the monks (at least the choir masters), trained in the classical liberal arts, had no conception of rhythm as it was understood by the Greeks and Romans.

Mocquereau's application of the rhythmic notion of departure and arrival is valuable, today, because it is a true notion of rhythm that allows conductors and singers to beautifully pray and sing Gregorian chant.

As one man above said that it was disturbing for the "Old Solesmes" people to bother him, I'm sure the same applies to the Semiologists, who have transcended Mocquereau and his bad bad bad followers, and come down from their mountain to proclaim the "Old Solesmes" people as "out-moded" and "quaint", etc.

I've enjoyed the posts of those who recognize that there are several valuable approaches to chant, and that each of these has the ability for individuals to pray the Chant of the Church.

To paraphrase J. Tucker, this argument is almost pointless.

At the Colloquium, you will not hear 'choppy' singing even in the beginning class, though many of them in that class may not be familiar with chants and/or new to classic Solesmes method. And in chironomy class, one may also learn how to use 'arsis and thesis' for smooth chant singing.


I feel truly blessed to have both classic Solesmes and Semiology, and learn both of them, though still learning. I am also thankful to those Solesmes monks and the followers, like Dr.Marier who is in no doubt a master musician and teacher who taught me the beauty of chant through classic Solesmes method. They persevered to restore chants in our church when there were many difficulties. Thanks to their hard work and sacrifices, present successors of both methods can continually improve them to help us to sing chants more beautifully.

I would suggest that, Skirpr, your arguments will carry more weight once you have studied Solesmes with an expert. At this point stating your own convictions and basing your conducting on your own musical instincts is a warning flag...the people here who are the experts are the first ones to say that their "method" is not the only method rather than taking your approach, that your musical background is sufficient to establish a stand for your own interpretation of chant.

At the Colloquium there were as many styles of conducting by the conductors as there were conductors. At NO TIME did anyone in public nor in private (from what I heard) criticise or make a stand for the conducting of Turkington over Ostrowski, for example. There were comments about Ostrowski's style, some of which made it to the forum, but not comments that were negative.

CMAA is not a place where there is an agenda to prevent any possible alternative system from getting in the door. Solesmes made a huge, concrete addition to the furthering of chant by the work that was done. But, and politely I would suggest (how am I doing, Charles in CenCa?) this, that there has been and will always be considerable discussion on this list and when CMAA people get together about how closely one should or should not take upon the mantel of Solesmes.

The battle that is being fought here is not over Solesmes, but over reestablishing chant in the Church.

Personally, I sincerely doubt:

"that even a beginner can count without ictuses, and can have a fundamental insight into rhythm that comes from modern music and is applied to chant. "

because modern music establishes a rhythm that is totally foreign to the singing of chant that is often difficult to overcome even by trained, professional musicians.

Everything that I have read and been taught tells me to tell singers to ignore the ictus and follow the director. The ictus is there for the director to study and evaluate and decide upon - I recall both Turkington and Poterack both mentioning this at XX.

Icti. I know it's confusing, but a Presbyterian minister once pointed out that if Columbus, Ohio were two cities in one, it would have been called Columbi. This however, does not explain "Columbia, SC".

"ALL rhythm, ALL motion, is a departure and an arrival."

Chris, even if one accepts this as "true," isn't it such a broad premise that practically anything can follow from it? I don't think anyone would deny that notes and phrases begin and end. It's what happens in the middle of the time span that's important, and what any disagreement is really about.

Noel,

For some reason, the plural of ictus as icti did not seem right to me when writing in English. Undoubtedly, you are correct in Latin (and perhaps in English too).

As for heat on this topic, I've generated plenty of it through the years, also for reasons I can't explain. There was a time when semiology got me riled up into a crazed frenzy. I had bitter email exchanges with people with whom I am now friends. You know who settled me down and made me calm about all of this? Two pretty hard-core old Solesmes people, Scott Turkington and Arlene Oost-Zinner. Then Wilko Brouwers chimed in. W Mahrt himself learned chant from a third tradition entirely. They all said the same thing: learn what we can where we can. Never close off a branch of understanding. Obviously, a method is just that; it is not doctrine that dictates how all things must be sung. Jeffrey O further taught me how much we do not know and how little we can actually trust the printed manuscripts, and Adam Bartlett has drawn attention to issues I had never considered. And it is my pleasure to study under Arlene's direction every week at Schola.

For this reason, I've backed off pontificating about a subject I do not entirely understand (moving on to other subjects I do not entirely understand) and hoping that we can put all this stuff behind us and just be open minded, generous and charitable toward each other, and just sing beautifully and well.

I think Fr. Ruff's statement above is quite elegant and touching actually.

If we can show respect for each other, learn from each other, keep an open mind, and move forward doing good things, the results will be more productive for everyone. Fighting is a waste (100 years of this has surely taught that much!). Learning brings progress.

I will add that I have my own biases here. Nothing wrong with that. We all need a framework because we have to sing Sunday.

Mr. Tucker and Fr. Ruff are of course, correct. I don't want to be "right," just accepted here and not having something I hold so fundamentally true as a musician to be considered "wrong" and kept out of this community where I feel I have as much to learn as I have to share - even if it is in conflict with others' opinions built on giants' shoulders. I apologize if in my argument I made anybody feel I thought they were "wrong."

We all agree on the same truth here, lets all agree there are numerous musical ways to reach it.

Sometimes I think that seeing someone as thoroughly perfect as a conductor of chant as Scott Turkington is can be both extremely inspiring and equally depressing! Now THAT puts a person in his or her place!

I am still curious about the answers to the original question.

Well, Fr. Ruff made it possible for one question to get answered! Thanks, FR!

And they call the wind Mariah. Francis, the cool, clean air of the west is getting to you!

I'm with most of the comments here, but especially the last one posted by DougS.

""ALL rhythm, ALL motion, is a departure and an arrival."

Chris, even if one accepts this as "true," isn't it such a broad premise that practically anything can follow from it? I don't think anyone would deny that notes and phrases begin and end. It's what happens in the middle of the time span that's important, and what any disagreement is really about."

DougS,

My purpose was not to attempt to explain Mocquereau's thinking about rhythm entirely. I was responding to a comment about Mocquereau's work that I thought was inaccurate. I mentioned some of the groundwork of Mocquereau's thinking to show that it wasn't groundless. If you read Mocquereau's famous book, available for free, you can see that he does address "what happens in the middle". I didn't think it was necessary for me to attempt to explain in at length considering the purpose of my post.

By the way, I again appreciate the voices of moderation on all sides here. I think this is a strength that I hope will grow as we, God willing, see chant more regularly utilized in the Mass.

But not from the inherent sense of departure and arrival native to the modes.

Noel, to clarify, I think the idea in question is tied to rhythm, not pitch--"pre-pitch" if you will, as rhythms have arrival and departure without pitch. Ta-ta-ta-tuuuum, for example.

But meditative and suspended in time doesn't mean that time is constantly weaving through the melodies (or especially the harmonies, if done correctly). Any note on any syllable can have a bit more emphasis than those next to it - not an accent, but a change in weight or intensity. Time weaving through the melodies (straight, equal notes) is guided by the neumes themselves. So I totally understand the concept of departing and arriving constantly through the piece. And the basic building blocks of the melody is always a scale - pentatonic, modal, major, or minor - and ALL made up of tetrachords.

It may not be so different. Modern music is also from the chant anyway. But I don't think learning more on how to perform it with a special training would hurt. (I guess this is from my cultural background, Korea, where we value 'learning' in one of the highest places (next in line is kimchi, our favorite food, :-) and also 'emptying the cup ' is the first step of learning.)

(Skirp,it sounds like you are very blessed to learn both Kodaly and Dalcroze which helped you become a better musician. Mia)