Jan van Biezen's rhythmic discoveries now make Gregorian chant amazingly easy to sing
"There is very little difference, ultimately, between them. What is it that sets van Biezen's work apart?" I would say it's his interpretation of ornamental notes.
there's no good way to notate those in square notes
The liquescent s at the end of Spiritus is another can of worms. Does it suggest a voiced [z] sound? Space between the s and d? A "shadow vowel"? Or merely that the s sound has to finish before the beat?
The most helpful site for comparative analysis is omnigreg.at.
I also saw in a French forum a Gregorian scholar saying that Van Biezen's researches answer all the objections that Cardine raised in relation to Vollaerts' mensuralism
Compare the three for each source to get an idea of the inconsistency of the scribes.
Where do the recorded offerings of speculative interpretations by Marcel Perez stand in your estimation?
I have read some criticism of his use of oblique organum/ison/drone, which apparently isn't documented before the 14th century.
Blackley was one of the last to publish on mensuralism.
There may be a kernel of truth in what he and others have proposed, but it would seem that we can never know with any certitude how the very earliest cantors performed their chant ... not to mention something so basic as how they 'felt' their chant, influenced immeasurably how the chant was performed.
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.