I don't want to offend anyone, but I find the concept of printing something in neumes that wasn't written in them to be nothing short of goofy. My congregation sings the ICEL chant mass from the hymnal where it is written in round notes - stemless round notes, that is. I looked in the missal and it is the same. What is the objective here?

I am fine with Gregorian chant that was originally written in neumes. That's authentic. But do you really consider the ICEL English chants to be Gregorian?

Perhaps authentic and inauthentic would be better descriptions.

Aren't we splitting hairs here with the ICEL chants? I don't see someone taking a look at one or the other notational system for the first time and having some great epiphany about how to perform a predominantly syllabic piece:

"OH! If I just sing this syllable as a square [or circle], it all comes together!"

When something is truly lost in the transcription, as is frequently the case, then we're in the gray areas of authenticity and performance practice.

As for goofy, well, there's a lot of goofy stuff out there.

Are, for example, the Simple English Propers by Adam Bartlett authentic or inauthentic? They are published in neumes.

Are my own plainchant compositions authentic or inauthentic? They are published in neumes.

I can't say that Adam's or my chant compositions were "written" (composed?) in neumes. In Adam's case, it's because I don't know his composing process. In my case, I sang the works into existence, notated them crudely (sometimes round sometimes square notes), and finally sometime in the fine-tuning process engraved them with neumes, especially because I thought that 4-line neumesque notation would be better suited to the kind of chant.

I cannot for the life of me see that either of us (or a lot of other stuff) is inauthentic.

For me, round notes are generally preferable for notating accompanied chants (and for chant accompaniments). If neumesque notation is an impenetrable stumbling block for inflexible singers, then round notes are a viable alternative.

Certainly we should teach singers and choirs both systems, but for chant, I can attest personally that it's not anachronism: neumes are simply easier to read (I've heard similar sentiments before from others) But for accompaniment, round notes obviously makes the most sense.

Would you write out Rhythm Guitar music as full chords on a manuscript? No, you use the accepted convention of Chord designations such as Em7 (E minor with 7th) or Dsus4 (D major with a suspended 4th).

Chant music should be written in Neumes because it makes more sense to do so. To do it in modern notation requires extra work - you have to add slurs when the neumes themselves denote these things in the music. You also then have to settle on the pitch of "Doh". The Doh and Fah Clefs are extremely useful because I can chose to play the music in different keys as is required.

The trouble with the use of modern notation in the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, English Translation is that the pitch of the reciting note is often uncomfortable for the person chanting and then they merely give up and say it instead of chanting it. Many people fought hard for the use of Neumes in the English Missal, alas it didn't eventuate.

This is what puts so many people off chant music. It is written in a set key when you use modern notation. The old notation system allows you to adjust the pitch according to requirements. I actually find it much easier to accompany chant by going through the music before hand and writing a few short-hand suggestions on accompaniment. I usually settle on a pitch for Doh and write out a series of guitar chords. But because I know that these chords are related it is easy for me to transpose up/down slightly if necessary.

I find that once people can read square notes with a familiar English text and tune, that they are more likely to have a crack at singing the antiphons of the SEP Communion Chant or even to have a go at some Latin Chant now that the music is suddenly not so foreign and unfamiliar.