Except among those who blindly cling to every aspect of Mocquereauvian theory, the notion of a rhythmic ictus entirely independent of verbal rhythms holds no sway today.

Those who have attended the CMAA Sacred music Colloquium, which is the largest and most important gathering of sacred musicians in the world, know better than this. Accompaniments where the chord changes happen only on the word accent sound very heavy...

BachLover2 wrote: "Those who have attended the CMAA Sacred music Colloquium, which is the largest and most important gathering of sacred musicians in the world, know better than this. Accompaniments where the chord changes happen only on the word accent sound very heavy... "

He opines that "accompaniments where the chord changes happen only on the word accents sound very heavy." He has the right to his opinion on this question of taste, but I do not share it, and I wonder if he has seen any of J.H. Arnold's accompaniments, which strike me as anything but heavy.

The statement of mine that he quotes at the head of his posting, however, is a statement of fact. The theory of a rhythmic ictus entirely independent of verbal rhythms is accepted by only a tiny minority of chant scholars today. Solesmes dismissed it years ago and, according to some, never gave much attention to it in practice.

He describes the CMAA Colloquium as "the largest and most important gathering of sacred musicians in the world." Whether it is the largest is a question of fact, and I don't know the answer. Whether it is the most important is a matter of opinion, and before venturing an opinion I would have to ask "Important in what sense?"

As an assembly of chant scholars deliberating about the interpretation of chant it is neither.

To: BachLover2:

I do not know of many scholars who in the past asserted that Mocquereau's theory of an ictus unrelated to verbal rhythm was supported by convincing evidence. (Paolo Ferretti appears to be one.) I know of scholars who once taught his performance system but later ceased to do so.

You have agreed with me that Solesmes never gave much attention to Mocquereau's method in practice. I add that in recent decades Solesmes has given up all pretense of following it and has ceased to promote it. In their recent publications they have omitted ictus marks.

I do not know of any scholars who are or were strongly interested in chant accompaniment.

I agree that the "Solesmes Method" was, indeed, a method intended to help choirs sing together. Experience has led me to believe that it is not an ideal method. I see value in delineation of binary and ternary rhythmic groups, but I have found that choirs sing better when in syllabic and somewhat-syllabic chant the delineations are based on verbal accents, as Pothier's secretary, Lucien David, urged. (See his Rhythme verbal et musical dans le chant romain.) I have observed that when Mocquereau's rules for the placement of the ictus are followed, singers must constantly be reminded to respect the verbal accents. Your experience may have been different.

I was offering advice to the person who was looking for a Mocquereau-system-based accompaniment to the Pater noster. I told her that I thought such an accompaniment would be more an impediment to congregational singing than a help. If you disagree, fine! But you responded by saying that "Those who have attended the CMAA Sacred music Colloquium, which is the largest and most important gathering of sacred musicians in the world, know [italics added] better than this. Accompaniments where the chord changes happen only on the word accent sound very heavy..." Your response suggested to me that you thought (a) Everyone in attendance at the Colloquium--or at least a majority--agreed that "accompaniment where the chord changes happen only on the word accent sound very heavy" and (b) That because they did, the case was closed. Perhaps this is not what you meant, but if it was, I believe you were mistaken on both counts.

You and I do not agree on the merits of the "Solesmes Method," nor is it necessary that we should.

I'm sorry this degenerated to an argument about the old Solesmes method. Something similar happened with my last post on congregational singing: I was very specific concerning what I was asking for advice about, but I got a lot more unasked-for opinions about various liturgical matters instead of answers to the very specific question I had asked.

I asked for an "old Solesmes" style accompaniment because that's what I use here for everything else, including parts of the ordinary sung by the congregation. The congregation is provided with the neumes from the Graduale or, more usually, The Parish Book of Chant, which, of course, are the same—although there is a bar line discrepancy in this particular chant. The ictus in the Pater noster is marked in only five places, always on an unstressed syllable. I value consistency and would strongly prefer not to mix and match rhythmic approaches.

I've found the old Solesmes method to work well with our scholas here. When we aren't pressed for time in rehearsal, I've had them count twos and threes to introduce new chants. Then, they really learn the chant and also understand what to look for in my conducting. Anyway, I liked the Liber cantualis accompaniment the best of the ones I was able to find, so I adapted it slightly, raising it a half step, correcting a parallel fifth, and making some other minor harmonic and rhythmic changes. We'll see how it works this weekend.

>>I've found the old Solesmes method to work well with our scholas here.

To the extent I understand it, I also use "old Solesmes," as a starting point with my small choir, because it makes it easy to keep the choir together, and we don't do nearly enough Gregorian Chant for us to develop a much more nuanced approach (::sigh...::).

I do, however, try to "sing it like it's music" and add/change/vary the rhythm slightly as it makes sense to me musically, much as I would any piece of music. I have neither the scholarly wherewithal nor the time to imagine that I can interpret the chant "correctly," so I simply work on interpreting it in as attractive manner as possible.

I imagine there are more "old Solesmes" pragmatic practitioners out there in the trenches than the high-falutin' semiology scholars realize. (Much as neither the glory of CMAA Colloquia nor the goofy of NPM adequately represent the "just getting by" nature of most parish music programs).