Unusual chant notation in the L. Usualis for the 8th Sunday after Pentecost
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    A typo discovered and then a question:

    Interesting thing for the 8th Sunday after Pentecost, in the Gradual, on page 1014, in the first measure of the third staff. The edition I have (from about 8 years ago, I think) has what appears to be a podatus after the flexus. (The end of the word "facias" from the previous staff.) But there is no line connecting the notes. I had never seen two notes stacked on top of each other like that.

    I went to the library at the Rome School of Music here at CUA, where they have about 20 copies of the L. Usualis ranging from 1920 to 1962. The same notation appeared in all of the ones I checked.

    I was writing this as a question, but realized just now it may be an ancient typo. In the 1962 edition that I checked out--and I might say just in this copy--- there is the faintest possible line connecting the two notes. I had suspected that's what it was because my more recent edition has a slightly faded staff line at that point, but no indication of anything vertical. I had looked at another 1962 copy in the library, and it appeared with no line.

    My main accomplishment today was discovering I could check out a copy and not have to lug mine from home, but in case anyone was preparing it and was confused, that's the answer.

    The question: Is there any significance to the extra bold flexus in that measure?
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    I don't know how my name appears to others, but A Mind That Suits is my screen name for virtually all non-financial lists and discussions, including my on-again, off again blog. It's from Love's Labours Lost. But I will have to switch that so it comes across as "Kenneth."

    Thanks for the notes. I discovered that if one inspects faded spines and whatnot, that small bookshelf at the Rome School has virtually any Latin chant book I could hope for, but I do not know how to cross reference them...yet. (-:
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    You can see that it is a defect in the formation of the neume, a typo if you like, by looking at the same figure on p. 1042, just before the double bar at the end of the respond and again at the end of the verse, where the proper line is there.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Kenneth,

    What do you mean by cross-reference the books?
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    THAT is an answer that takes a lifetime to study to come up with. I was going on intuition--the other way of reading it didn't seem very chant-like. Always a pleasure to hear from a real expert, the real expert, and just makes me realize how much more I have to learn. Of course, my main response to seeing all those wonderful old books, untouched for many years it seems, was, "That's hundreds of hours of glorious music." But now I know how to verify it better than simply hoping for a properly printed copy.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 857
    Sorry if htat wasn't clear. I meant, as recommended, that rather than dusting off old copies of the LIber U., I could have used the Graduale and other books available on this website, which anyone can do. The library offered her at musica sacra has gotten much richer even than it was before, so there are ample resources for everyone.

    I was blessed enough to find the answer in one randrom copy of the LIber U. Using the website would have been easier.

    On the other hand, I discovered a bunch of books I had never heard of before yesterday, so it was worth the effot. Hope that clarifies.
Add a Comment