Non-Gregorian Chant Notation
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    I'm writing an unaccompanied Mass setting based on Shaker chant.
    I'm finding modern rhythmic notation to be a bit to restrictive, and modern chant to be unable to communicate enough information.

    I've been thinking about using four-line square notes (now that I've learned how to use Gregorio), but I'm curious what the general opinion might be of using Gregorian notation for a non-Gregorian melody (it's not in one of the church modes, the melodic formulae are clearly not Gregorian).

    Good idea? Bad idea? Makes no difference to anyone?
  • JDE
    Posts: 588
    Use the panacea of all rhythmic notation:

    Write "rubato."

    The end.

    Okay, actually not the end. If you're like Chopin, 150 years after your death, people will still be arguing about what you meant by "rubato." But that's not going to be your problem, is it?
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    In what specific ways is standard notation too restrictive?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    I find that standard notation, with a time signature and notes that mean a particular amount of time, suggests/enforces a meter that isn't my intention with the music.
    Adding in the kind of modern-notation information that would show how it is supposed to sound (changes in time signature, "rubato," etc) clutter it up and make something that is really quite simple seem quite complicated.
    Additionally, doing those things puts (at least psychological) shackles on anyone reading, as if this exact way is the right way to perform it, which isn't the case either.

    Then there's stemless round notes. Potentially the best way to go, but still problems, primarily:
    -five-lines and a cleff suggests specific pitches, whereas this music, like Gregorian chant, doesn't require fixed pitch.
    -notation software isn't designed for it, so it's kind of a pain (removing stems, hiding barlines and time signatures, etc).


    Really, the problems with modern notation for this music are pretty much the same as trying to use modern notation for Gregorian chant.
    My question, then, is:
    Does using Gregorian chant notation for non-Gregorian music carry it's own set of problems?
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Your issues with pitch are not solved with Gregorian notation, because relative pitch is encoded there too. Would people really have difficulty singing something other than G when looking at a G on the page and being told what pitch to sing instead? And from there simply singing the intervals that are written instead of the specific pitches?

    As for rhythm, I'm not quite sure what you are going for in terms of the actual sound, so it is hard to suggest a notational solution. Is it a primarily syllabic text, or would you need a lot of multi-note symbols?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,413
    I believe that if your composition is conceived of as 'chant', albeit with melodic influences outside those normal for chant, that you should use chant notation if it better conveys the rhythm and flow which you want. This should be an interesting experiment. There is no reason why chant notation cannot be used outside the normal chant repertory. Modern western notation, after all, is used for (and is often found inadequate for) an incredibly vast array of styles and idioms. Gregorian notation, on the other hand, conveys more or less specific information about vocal rhythm and nuance. If this is the specific information you wish to convey, try using it: I'm sure we would all be interested to see the result.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I agree with Jackson and didn't mean to sound discouraging, by the way. If you feel that it could work, then by all means try it.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    Chant notation was used for other repertories than Gregorian, i.e., Troubadour and Trouvère songs.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    If Dr. Mahrt says it's okay, then I feel good about it.

    I feel like it communicates my intentions better.

    My concern was something along the lines of,
    "Oh, neat- Adam wrote a new Mass setting using Gregori... what! This is all wrong. Clearly he is an idiot and doesn't know anything about Gregorian chant. Boo on him and all pentatonic music from Early America."

    That might still happen either way, but I was (am) afraid that Gregorian notation would highlight the difference and brand me as some sort of poseur.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    I think it's fine to use whatever tools you have at your disposal to help get your music to sound the way you want with your own choir, which I assume reads chant notation just fine. If the notation was unfamiliar, I might not use it if it for non-Gregorian music - at least at first.
  • JDE
    Posts: 588
    Adam, if you let fear of collegial reproach become your leash, you'll never get off the porch.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Clearly, the solution is to use triangular noteheads on a 7-line staff, thus being equally confusing to everyone!

    :-) !

    Seriously, put together a sample and run it by a variety of people, and see what they think! You might get some surprises and interesting feedback.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    I put it together, it's over in a new thread called "Mass Setting Based on Shaker Chant"
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    I'm afraid modern music notation has received, and continues to receive a bad reputation when it comes to rhythmic interpretation. And I think the majority of organist are the culprits! Both instrumentalists and vocalists need to wrap their minds around the concept of melody lines flowing to both the contours of the lines and to the text. This is chant. It is neither a 4/4 march nor a 3/4 waltz. It's not even a tango with syncopation. It is chant. Accompanied or not, it needs to be approached in a different manner from all other music. Notation is just a performance guide. So, the very first thing to do is get rid of ALL TIME SIGNATURES. Then you have the freedom to place bar lines (of whatever description, from whatever tradition) wherever they make more sense to the melodic and textual content.

    A note to organists: when you approach chant accompaniment, free yourselves of all this solid, metronomic restriction. Sing the chant. Let it flow. Let your fingers (never pedals on chant) blithely flow over the keys.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,477
    Steve

    I totally agree with you.... in theory.

    But practical reality #1 is:
    tricking out your notation software to get the results you want can be a pain.
    Doable, but sometimes there's an easier way.

    Practical reality #2:
    When composing, you can wish that performers thought about music differently, but it just isn't so. If you know that doing something in particular (square notes instead of round) will cause most performers to do one thing instead of another, then it makes sense to write the thing that will cause what you want to be done, regardless of why it causes that effect.

    Practical reality #3:
    Square notes are prettier!



    Fortunately, we live in an age where many composers are easily able to record demonstration videos with scroll-along scores. So, it's easier than ever to get the results you want.
    Jeff O is a real pioneer in that regard, as well as in his clear notation of Organ accomp which is (it seems to me) just modern and just chant-like enough to illustrate what he's getting at.
    I think the next generation of chant scholars and performers will see Jeff's work as a huge leap forward, bridging the gap between chant and modern, between theory and practice, between dead French monks and real live parish musicians.
Add a Comment