Assistance sought - TI or TE in Offertory verse for 2nd Sunday
  • russroan
    Posts: 6
    Dear Friends,

    Please see the attached picture for reference.

    Our schola is working on the offertory verse for the 2nd Sunday and we are unsure on a matter of interpretation regarding the applicability of a flat sign.

    IIRC the guidance for flat sign shelf life is that the flat applies

    (1) until the word is completed, OR

    (2) until a bar line is reached, OR

    (3) it is neutralized by a natural sign.

    Please observe the notes indicated by the yellow arrows on the fourth line. I would normally confidently believe that these notes are TIs since they are separated from the original flat sign by a bar.

    But if you look at the very end of the verse (red arrow), there seems to be a superfluous NATURAL sign for the word MEA after the half-bar. Why would a natural sign be shown here and not at the yellow arrows if indeed the bar line nullified the effect of the FLAT sign?

    Is anyone familiar enough with this offertory verse to know whether the notes indicated by the yellow arrows (and the remainder of the notes in that magnificent melisma) should be TIs or TEs?

    Any guidance is greatly appreciated.

    Thanks,

    Russ Roan
    image
    OFV-annotated.pdf
    637K
  • russroan
    Posts: 6
    This is an extraneous comment - sorry - I corrected an error in the original post here but then realized I could simply edit the original and make the correction there. Now if only there were a delete comment option. :-)

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    I have to think that the use of the natural sign indicates that they are operating under different rules. They seem to be keeping the accidental in effect until the end of the word, regardless of any half-bar lines, until/unless a natural sign cancels it.
  • WJA
    Posts: 237
    The translation of the "Preface to the Vatican Edition of the Roman Chant" found in the Liber Brevior says, at page xij, paragraph 4: "It is to ,be noted that B-flat, when it occurs, only holds good as far as the next natural, or dividing line, or new word." I have always understood this to mean, "only holds good as far as the next natural, or dividing line, or new word, *whichever comes first.*"

    So, following that rule, the natural sign in the piece you've attached would indeed be superfluous. So, if you got this particular typesetting from the Liber, I would conclude the natural sign is a typo. If you got it from some other book, I wonder if it's preface would offer any guidance?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,182
    It's from the Offertoriale 1935 by Karl Ott (downloadable from musicasacra.com), p. 70, which is supposed to be compatible with the Vatican edition (of 1908?)
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    I would be interested in learning the conclusion to this question.
  • Chris HebardChris Hebard
    Posts: 124
    Perhaps someone check the Offertoriale Triplex, which came out a couple of years ago.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    In the Montpellier manuscript, the earliest source to indicate the difference between b-flat and b-natural, all the bs from the beginning of labia up to the bar in the middle of mea are flat; the last b is natural. That is, the bs at the yellow arrows are flat in Montpellier. Chonak is right that this is from Ott's Offertoriale, but I think Ott's meaning is that the flat lasts for the duration of the whole word. This suggests that Ott's protocol for flats might be that they last for the duration of a word, regardless of whether a bar intervenes. However, in glancing over other offertory verses, he sometimes renews the flat after a bar, so he is probably inconsistent. In saying it is compatible with the Vatican Edition, I think his meaning is that the melodies for the Offertory responsories proper are simply those of the Vatican edition, while the melodies for the verses have been edited from manuscript sources;the first source he lists is Montpellier.

    The Montpellier source is interesting for the use of accidentals, since, it uses different symbols to indicate b-natural and b-flat, so there is no ambiguity. Still, the Vatican Edition does not always agree with Montpellier with regard to accidentals.
    Thanked by 4CHGiffen Paul_Onnonhoaraton chonak Chris Allen
  • carljn
    Posts: 23


    Out of curiosity, how do you determine where the holds, breaks and lengthenings go in these verses? We've been doing them by what seems right and similar to the rythmic markings in the Liber.
  • russroan
    Posts: 6
    Dr. Mahrt - Thanks so much for this explanation - it is very helpful.

    @carljn - we do pretty much what you describe; we "test-drive" markings that seem appropriate and see how they sound relative to the melody of the responsory/antiphon.

    Ultimately we choose what "sounds" best as far as consistency with the overall work and what's going on with the text. (For example, if the text has punctuation at a bar, we are more likely to introduce more thesis at the bar than we would have otherwise.)

    We don't do any deep-dive scholarly research such as reviewing the Triplex or anything like that. :-)
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    There's also the AISCGre version which makes the application of the flat more clear.
  • russroan
    Posts: 6
    @incantu - Hmm ... the link you provided shows reversion back to B-NATURAL before the first half-bar after "la" begins:

    image

    That's pretty odd given that if this were really the case there would be an unambiguous need for a NATURAL sign in the Offertoriale according to Liber rules.

    I think we'll stick with what Dr. Mahrt reports from the Montpellier source.
    la.tiff
    14K
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    ...there would be an unambiguous need for a NATURAL sign

    I'm not really sure what this means. I find the notation in Stingl's score to be unambiguous in terms of the application of the flat. Perhaps it would seem odd if you were expecting the two scores to agree with each other. It's likely that they would not agree, since the AISCGre edition is based on more recent research.

    I can't say to what extent Montpellier was used for this particular reading. If you want a detailed note-by-note explanation, you can see the Beitrëge zur Gregorianik, vol 30 p. 12. But in practice, I think you would be justified in following either editor's reading.

Add a Comment