1) Vibrato - is never good (except under the most unique circumstances, which you are not likey to encounter). In nearly all western sacred music vibrato is antithetical to the sacred choral sound which we cultivate. In addition, it is in quite bad taste.

2) Harmony - there are some forms of 'harmony' which can be utilised in chant performance that are part and parcel of its evolution. (Needless to say, these forms do not include normal 4 part harmony as we understand it in our culture.) While accepting without reservation that chant is an inherently monodic, purely melodic and unaccompanied form, there are ways of 'ornamenting' it which are not foreign to its formative and evolutionary stages. These would be the knowledgeable addition of an ison (drone) to some chants; too, the knowledgeable addition of organum, which can be very simple parallel 5ths or 4ths and 8ves, or more elaborate organum which utilises other intervals, and some contrary motion.

3) Faburden, Fauxbourdon and Discant - methods of ornamenting chant which can be put most simply as singing against the melody in parallel 6ths and 3rds. This manner of performance was often applied to psalm tones, but could be applied to other chants as well.

4) Diction - Both qualities within a diphthong should be distinctively pronounced, saving, though, the second quality until the last moment of the syllable's life. All vowels should be formed with a mind to make them as rich and constant in quality as possible for the full number of beats, pulses and pitches assigned to them. The consonant should be as distinct and as heard as possible at the last moment of a syllable's life; or, in the case of a consonant at the beginning of a word, it, too, has the honour of clearly and distinctively defining the new life of a new word.

5) Overpronouncing - you mention this. It does happen, but one really, really has to work awfully hard to actually be overpronouncing. One has, of course, witnessed (very seldomly) real overpronouncing that was actually just a not very artful attempt at practicing good diction. As a rule, it isn't something you should probably be concerned with. Good diction while singing is, in fact, overpronouncing in comparision to normal spoken language. If you can actually hear t's and p's at the ends of the words of your singers, it is because they are overpronouncing, and in having done so have made their sung language just barely discernable to the hearers. Never be afraid of this. Teach it and insist on it.

6) An extra - 'accompaniment' - I mention this because you say you are just starting out. So, I hope greatly that you start out right. There are widely divergent views about 'accompanied' chant on this forum. I will state mine, and point out that it is consonant with the best chant scholarship of our time. Chant, as was mentioned above (no. 1) is inherently a monodic (single melody line only) genre. There is no harmony or accompaniment inherent to or implied in its nature. Never use chant 'accompaniments'. Get started off on the right foot and learn not to rely on accompaniments which inevitably draw attention to themselves by their very presence and destroy the unfettered rhythm and pristine monody which is the glory of chant, and impose upon it an harmonic structure (whether modal or tonal) which is antithetical to its nature. I have taught chant for many years in a variety of settings and have never once used an organ or other keyboard instrument... not even for so much as to give a pitch. One teaches chant by singing it because it is a purely vocal genre. My students have never failed to learn and learn well by this paedagogical method.

(You are so fortunate to be in Massachusetts and not Houston. Is it still snowing up there?)

George, there is one area of 'overpronunciation' that I find odd, which one can hear in the chanting of many French speakers. It is the use of a schwa ('uh') after a final consonant in order to not 'break' the sound. For instance, fiat lux rendered as fee-at-uh looks-uh. I do believe that it is an attempt to make distinct final consonants, which tend to not be pronounced at all in French unless elided. (My pastor, an American who speaks French fluently and who often visited Fomgombault before and after learning to offer the EF, does this when reading or chanting in Latin quickly, but not when moving more slowly, as does a French priest who visits us from time to time. I do not think my pastor realizes it and I wouldn't dream of pointing it out to him.)

I only point it out as something you may hear in recordings that is unnecessary for a good flow of Latin words. Also, when listening to recordings, do note that several language groups have their own versions of ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation (e.g., German, French, British English speakers, among others).

Then there's always the vowel I think of as the sheep-bleat [aaa as in naa-naa-naa-naa-naaaaa-naaaaa] which is not an acceptable vowel according to the rules given in the Liber et al, but which appears in French chanting as well. My schola has had several native Southerners for whom that vowel sound is the 'normal' ah vowel, and early in our history I was constantly having to point it out in order to correct it--so much so that eventually all I had to do was cross my eyes to have them grinning and correcting it. Then one day I was driving along and I put a new CD from one of the French abbeys in my CD player--Easter chants--and nearly drove off the road laughing so hard at the first words: Saaaalve feste dies, with the French a-circumflex that is their version of the 'sheep-bleat'. My comeuppance!

I always say that we are trying to sing in Latin so well that no one pegs us as Americans. But I am certain that our attempts, influenced by regional pronunciations of English that still sneak in, are odd to singers with other native languages, both those who have their own native-language versions of 'good' Latin pronunciation and those who try for the official ecclesiastical Latin!

I prefer to think of the pronunciation of "in" as like the German word "ihn" - getting away from the American tendency to pronounce a double-e "ee" as a diphthong in which the mouth broadens almost to a smile and flattens and nasalizes the sound inappropriately.

The biggest problem for American speakers of a language such as Latin (and other languages) is the apparent way that Americanese embraced the "great vowel shift" by turning almost every vowel into a diphthong in pronunciation: Dep as "deh-ee-oo-wu" *shudder*. Second to this is the schwah'ization of so many weak vowels, which may be appropriate in modern colloquial speech but it out of place in singing or proper oratory: It's not "buhneath" or "duhcision" or "kingdum" or "wisdum frum on high" *shudder again*

SkirpR

I'm not saying the schwah shouldn't be used, but rather that it is too often overused or improperly used, as in the "dih-cision" (correct) versus "duh-cision" (wrong) for the word "decision". I also happen to believe that if, say, one is singing a work whose text is English of a former time (eg. it has "Thee" or "Thou" or "hast", etc.), then the schwah'ization should be even less than it normally would be. Thus there are contexts in which, say, "the" in "the rose" should be pronouced as "theh" (and the "r" in "rose" flipped) and not "thuh"   but then I come from an early music practice. :)

Thanks, all, for the advice. In the "accompanied" Chant is it permissible to let the organ play the notes "in the background" (inaudible to the congregation but not to the choir)?

To all who asked; no it is not snowing still (it was 80 degrees F) yesterday, the buds are coming and the flowers and veggies are starting to grow. Tomorrow it will be Summer (Ha!).

Have another question. Lately I have been watching EWTN's Mass on TV and the Cantor seems to not realize that the Chapel is extremely small and he sings at the top of his voice. I am not attempting to be critical; it just seems he might tone down a little. He uses vibrato a lot. How should I address this with the Network? Thanks, I do not want to be overly critical.

If one keeps a forward moving tempo without pushing the voice, vibrato should not be an issue in chant. What I mean is, there is no time for it. Notes of length can be articulated with tasteful repercussion. Observing relatively equal note lengths makes no room for vibrato. The line is always moving.

Re: The schwa.

Madeline Marshall, author of A Singer's Manual of English Diction,, what taught singers' diction at Juilliard for many years, insisted that schwas be sung as schwas. Most choir directors I have encountered have railed, "It's JUHrusalem, not JEHrusalem."

I must admit, however, that schwas don't work in chant melismata or even in certain comparatively short neumes.

OK, what does one do when when pronounces Miserere nobis as MMMMyisierierrrre NNNNyobbbyis? This is also very inconsistent.

@JeffreyQuick... Actually, "evil" was one of Ms. Marshall's exceptions... she insists it should be pronounced "evihl" for the very reasons you state.

I also wouldn't be so quick to call everyday speech compounded laziness. I really can't believe there's truly "fault" or "blame" in the development of language. It's been happening for millenia.

I can't help but agree with Marshall, though, if the schwa exists in German and especially French, and is sung in those languages, why should we avoid it so in English.

Of course, schwas don't work in Latin chant. They might in English chant. Depends on how affected you want to sound (in either direction).

Or contemporary Americanese vs. turn of the (20th) century English.

although chant unacompanied is its pure original form, accompaniments can be very beautiful. a well known and pristine work is the N.O.H. which can be downloaded from corpus christi watershed.

the sibilant "s" is problem one

Actually, according to memory (so I may well be wrong), I seem to remember a quasi-official guide to pronouncing ecclesiastical Latin recommends that intervocallic "s" (an "s" between two vowels) NOT turn into a "z"...

As much as this might help with legato and pitch in the short-term, long-term we all gotta take the training wheels off sometime...

Umnnhhh...."overpronunciation", seems to me, is a matter of subjective perception.

We must remember that the text (the Word) is primary. Thus, our effort should be directed toward clarity of the text (Word,) and we must work within a given acoustic chamber.

Now and then, recording the choir's efforts (from different parts of the church) may be helpful. One adjusts accordingly.

not sure if this is the place to ask this question but here goes ... can someone explain how to determine the mode of a particular piece of chant? many thanks!

WGS,
Many thanks! The problem comes when there is no tone number - chant that has been copied by hand or some years ago. We will just have to persevere!