"According to the principle of graphic separation, I understand a melisma to be large string of quasi-syllabic groupings of neumatic elements. These smaller groupings mirror, in their composition, the composition of quasi-syllabic chant. I other words, the melisma could be seen as a string of "syllabic" groupings that are being sung on one syllable. Therefore, the principles of "sung speech" carry over to the treatment of these groupings within a melisma."

A melisma has but one syllable on it. In the graduals, Alleluias, and Responsories, the melismas often have 30, 40, 50, 60, or even more than 60 notes.

Are you suggesting (in the paragraph above) that we pretend as if the melisma had text?

Maybe those groups of neumes in melisma can be sung as if you are trying to convey some sort of meanings in that partcular chant? I read somewhere those melismas can be compared to bird singing. It might sound like it doens' t have any meanings, but maybe it does have meanings. It's not as concrete as those with words. The melody of the melisma cannot be random and out of context from the rest of the chant melody. It makes sense that there are some sort unifying elements between the melimatic groupings and non-melismatic groupings of neumes in a chant.
And maybe we can sort of compare those groupings in the actual manuscripts?

Anyway, I just ordered, "Beginning Studies in Gregorian Chant" by Cardine." I'd like to look into the study of "Structural pitch" and "Groupings of Neumes."
Very interesting.

"Kyrie melismas, and the Alleluia Jubilus came from earlier troped texts."

actually, it was the other way around --- some people found it easier to remember those melismas if they fit words to them.

The fact that this practice existed, however, does not change the fact that Gregorian chant is fundamentally MUSIC, song, cantilena --- the more that one studies the chants, the more one sees this affirmed --- Haberl's principles (both the mensuralistic practices and the dictum "sing as you speak") are very enticing at first, and I can see why Cardine adopted some of these old principles of the 19th century (whether or not I feel that was unfortunate and a step backwards is not the issue) --- for myself, I don't think they will stand the test of time.

"The fact that this practice existed, however, does not change the fact that Gregorian chant is fundamentally MUSIC, song, cantilena --- the more that one studies the chants, the more one sees this affirmed"

I would really like to see some support for this statement. This honestly seems very absurd. The more that I study the chants and the more I study the liturgy, the more I see how the Gregorian melodies serve the sacred text. This melody adorns the text, lifting it to prayer. Melismas seem to be a testament to a high development of this adornment and the jubilus demonstrates that there are indeed times that the Church needs to pray without words. But fundamentally, the TEXT of the liturgy has efficacy without music, Gregorian chant without text does not exist.

I would like to reply to numerous comments I have read. The question is, "Where should I begin"?

1. The ordinary notes of a melisma, according to Cardine, have the approximate value of a syllable that consists of a vowel alone. The augmented syllable that consists of a consonant and a vowel. These differences are slight. Cardine and Claire deplored the fact that they were often exaggerated.

2. Interpretations of the dictum, "Sing as you speak" vary widely. Even Gajard said that some syllables were more equal than others. He pointed out that it takes longer to sing "concludunt" than to sing "anima." With reference to simple syllabic recitations I suspect that Cardine and Mocquereau were not much in disagreement.

2. Semiologists are not the only people who have claimed to understand the rhythmic nuances expressed in the Laon and St. Gall neumes. Mocquereau certainly interpreted them and based part of his method upon his interpretation of them. Pothier borrowed some features of the St. Gall notation and incorporated it into the Solesmes four-line notation. The semiologists have backed up their interpretation of the adiastematic neumes by more exhaustive comparative study than Mocquereau or Pothier, however. If Mocquereau had lived to see the results of the semiologists' research, he might well have have modified his interpretation of some neumatic elements.

3. Jeff points out that the notes in the Vatican edition are not the exact notes sung in the ninth century. On this ground he criticizes the editors of the Triplex for placing the Laon and St. Gall neumes above and below the notes of the Vatican edition. The portion of notes in the Vaticana that differ from those that were sung in the ninth century probably does not exceed ten per cent. Virtually all chant editors since the 19th century--including Pothier and Mocquereau--have worked by comparing diastematic manuscripts with adiastematic manuscripts. The only alternative to this method is to ignore the adiastematic manuscripts and to assign absolutely equal value to every note in one's chosen diastematic manuscript.

When the right diastematic manuscripts are chosen, the incidence of conflict between the diastematic and adiastematic neumes decreases sharply. The only legitimate objection to the Triplex is that its compilers did not refer to the best diastematic manuscripts and correct notes in the Vaticana that did not accord with the adiastematic neumes. If they had done so, their work would be of greater value; but it is certainly not without value now. Ninety per cent of the time the square notes agree with the adiastematic neumes.

4. Jeff asserts that semiologists are not certain beyond all doubt that their interpretation of the rhythmic signs in the adiastematic manuscripts is correct. Neither was Mocquereau. They do, however, have a stronger basis for their interpretation than he did. It makes no sense to say that because the semiologists may be mistaken about some points, we ought to reject their findings in toto.

5. Dom Lucien David was Pothier's secretary. He was a committed accentualist who recognized the value of delineating binary and ternary rhythmic groups but aligned ictus with accent. His "method" is published in: LE RHYTHME VERBAL ET MUSICAL DANS LE CHANT ROMAIN (University of Ottawa, 1933). I borrowed a copy of the book on interlibrary loan years ago and photocopied it in its entirety. Personally, I think David provides a better foundational "method" into which we can incorporate the findings of semiology than does Mocquereau's method. It is less counter-intuitive. In The American Gradual I follow his rules for placement of the ictus.

This thread has taken quite a turn....

If I may, I would like to share a few personal thoughts.

I have to say I get irritated with those who say things like, "How can you ignore semiology in your interpretation?" The reason is because semiology refers to the study of signs, and consequently, it implies that Cardine and his students were the first people to ever study the symbols (what they call "graphica") in the MSS. This is beyond insane. People have studied those ancient signs for hundreds of years. To imply that Cardine was the first to study the neumes in the MSS is like saying that Zoltán Kocsis was the first person to ever play the piano. For years, Dom Cardine called his studies "Gregorian Diplomatics," and I think this is a better term for it.

Many of the assertions in semiological articles by Cardine's disciples, and (for that matter) Cardine's "last will and testament" are arrogantly false. They remind me of a phrase in a show I like. The show is called "Forensic Files" --- and the phrase they often repeat at the end is, "Forensics are the only way to solve a crime, because forensic samples can't lie and the forensic evidence can't skip town." Many people repeat this dictum at the end of the show.

The problem is, it is a false phrase. For one thing, the "forensic evidence" certainly can skip town....not in the way that crooks do, though. The evidence can be destroyed or lost.

More importantly, although the forensic evidence cannot LIE, it can be MISINTERPRETED. That is a huge thing to grasp.

The same is true of the Gregorian MSS.

Perhaps an anecdote can get across what I am trying to say:

I once read a doctoral dissertation where a certain scholar took the time to read some of the "visitation" logs from a 14th century convent (Bishops visited the religious houses personally each year by order of Canon law, and each religious met with the bishop, sharing her inmost concerns). In this particular visit, a nun said that there was too much space in between the verses of the psalms (i.e after the mediatio, before the completion of each verse) --- she said, "I could say three Hail Mary's before they go on after each mediatio --- it takes forever, and I'm sick of it." Well, this scholar took what that nun said, applying it to all performances by choirs directed by this scholar for the rest of the scholar's career. (The scholar told me that (s)he felt it necessary to make a modification, and only insert a silent beginning of a Hail Mary [instead of three full Hail Mary's] after the mediatio to save time). The scholar told the choirs that putting this much space in between was "true historical practice."

Now, what is wrong with that?

Simply that the scholar did not consider the CONTEXT. Think about it: the religious was complaining about her superior...wasn't it possible that she was exaggerating? Also, even if the religious was correct in what she said, and even if that visitation MSS was not tampered with for all those centuries, and the scholar was able to read it and interpret it correctly, who said that EVERYONE who sang Psalms in 14th century Europe sang like that convent, with that much space after the mediatio? We don't have testimonies from all the others. Very few documents survive (just like Gregorian MSS!!!). Also, assuming what the nun said was correct, is it not possible that they only sang psalms like that for a specific time period? Finally, and more importantly: does it make good music to do what the scholar did??

In this case, the evidence (the complaint by a nun in private to her bishop) was correctly interpreted (we can reasonably assume in my view)....but the CONTEXT, the historical context, was never considered. I see this in many of the semiological arguments. In their attempt to be historically accurate, they end up being anything but.

I see this with a lot of semiological "evidence" presented (there is one such instance in the Last Will and Testament mentioned above) ---- they act like the scribe was sending a secret message to semiologists 1000 years later and proofread it a whole bunch of times before "submitting" it --- when in fact, there could often be NUMEROUS other explanations for certain things we find in MSS, and one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just for an example: what if the scribe's HAND was tired, so he did not make his stroke quite so prominent on that word? That is but one example of things that absolutely must be taken into consideration. I could list a million more, especially since back in those days, things were different---there was no electricity, there was sickness, near-sightedness, lack of food, water, sanitation, ALL KINDS of things one must consider carefully before dogmatic pronouncements are made.

If I might insert my worthless and nonacademic comments as someone intrigued and perplexed by semiology:

I usually find the vitriol on the side of the "old solesmes" school, rather than the semiologists. They tend to just look at us as oddball throwbacks, while neither Jeffrey seems to be able to write so much as "chant is good" without throwing in some jibe against not just the practice but the practitioners of semiology. I'd like to get to know the Triplex practice, but I hardly know where to begin. I say that to establish that I'm by and large neutral to it. I'd like to contribute my outsider's evaluation of the common CMAA propaganda:

- It is said that semiology is prohibitively difficult. I can't disagree with that. Outside of our protestant friend Bruce Ford, I don't know ANY (American) church with extensive and regular use of schola chant by the semiology school. This is something Bruce should understand about (what remains of) Catholic sacred music culture. I once interviewed at the local cathedral, and asked the director about chant and mentioned my studies of the "ictus" method. She immediately dismissed that method and said "you can't have any idea of how to do chant until you are familiar with the Triplex". I should mention that the usual Sunday at this cathedral features Mass of Creation, All are Welcome, and Amazing Grace. And chant is not used. Even WRT those friendly to chant, I have a few respected young colleagues who are trained in the semiological school, and they only sing solo, and typically one antiphon per Mass. One friend taught his choir Agnus Dei VIII in the semiology method, and they have never seen a single note of the music!

- It is also said that this method leaves the disciples without any way of learning to chant. I also must confess this to be true. I had to correct myself above, my local EF Mass is cantored by the organist who is well trained in the semiology school (and even is capable of beautiful vocal improvisations upon the chants). He has invited me to sing with him, even though he refers to the CMAA method as "ugly garbage". I find singing with him quite difficult, as he takes (what seem to me) random shifts in tempo and volume. He conducts his intent well, but still the effect is one nuanced beautiful singer and a damn fool blurting out bluntly a series of pairs and triplets of notes. I once subbed for one of my friends above mentioned, the one who uses Agnus Dei VIII. I told the choir that I accompany it a good deal slower than my friend, and they eventually got the tempo. However, they routinely rushed the three cadential notes at the end of each strophe! I tried to explain to them what I do, I said "In my school, I've been trained to treat the horizontal episema as pretty much doubling the note values." No such luck, as they didn't have the music to look at, and had only learned through "do exactly what I do"! Maybe there's SOME parishes where they teach people to interpret the neums. But my limited experience, and Jeff Tucker's testimony, is that semiologists leave the others in their schola to fake the comprehension of the neums.

- As for the argument Jeff O. outlined above, I find it typical claptrap about historical performance. It reminds me of the ridiculous Virgil Fox quote, "I doubt these Bach scholars ride around in horse-drawn carriages or s**t in outhouses!" Surely any CMAA member who holds to this sort of anti-intellectualism can explain to us why the Medici gradual or the German editions (with the sharps!) are invalid and the "more historically accurate" solesmes editions should be preferred, if historical fidelity is unimportant? As an organist, I'm not one of those tracker-only snobs, but I do try to replicate an authentic performance of Bach, as much as I would Franck or Sowerby. That means when I play German Baroque music, I use toes-only pedaling. I don't do it because Bach did it that way, but rather because it helps me to play with an articulation that Bach would have used. So the historic practices aid me in rendering an authentic and beautiful performance rather than being an end to themselves. The question ought not to be how can we pretend to be 8th century monks, but rather how can we replicate this music in a manner similar to how it was originally performed and keep it beautiful? It has been hypothesized that the original Gregorian modes may have utilized quarter tones; I would submit that this would result in a performance that modern ears would find to be not beautiful at all. We can eschew things like that, but surely a focus on the sacred text rather than notes for the sake of notes renders a more beautiful* performance of the chant?

(* I should clarify that I don't believe in objective musical beauty. I believe the beauty of chant comes from its intimate link to the liturgy. Singing Ad te Levavi without text outside of Mass is just a bunch of vibrating air. Singing it in church with the text used for perhaps over a millennium, it's the worship of God by His people.)

Well, I would say the more vocal members of the CMAA are in support of the method I've learned, and CMAA doesn't typically sponsor semiological events. I would tend to support a "cross-pollination" of semiological insights into the old school, and for the semiologists to reach SOMETHING resembling a consensus instead of a million different ideas about tempo, dynamics, etc. Well, not a million. And the CMAA does not actually support the 1930s method at the barrel of a gun. But if you don't know that I'm prone to wild exaggeration, you need to read me more often on here.

I should mention one more misgiving I have that I don't often see brought up here: It seems to me illogical to attempt to deduce minute details from neums when neums were invented after much of the body of chant was written. They were intended for reminders. The idea of drawing a comprehensive method for chant interpretation off of neums strikes me as just like trying to deduce what I do in my life from my scrawled notes to myself on post-its that cover my desk at home. I'm sure this objection has been answered by the Cardine school, but they don't tend to mention the holes in their musicology very often.

And again, I'm not a scholar, these are just my impressions as someone wondering which method would be best to pursue.

In regard to historical performance, I'm not sure what it has to do with liturgical chant in a modern church. Studies in performance practice yield valuable information that helps us understand the performance of music during previous eras on an intellectual level as well as a practical one. The story that Gavin relates has been around for some time and may be apocryphal, but I have seen these types of experiments -- including one where Austrian chant incipits of concerted works were sung incredibly slowly to test out a scholar's findings on tempo. Experiments are just that.

It is also true, as Richard Taruskin pointed out years ago, that we cannot "listen" in a historically informed manner. We've heard too much subsequent music to hear Bach as a new, for example. Does this mean that historical performance is a hopeless endeavor? Hardly. When music is performed even approximately like it was in past eras, it just makes more musical sense. This is especially true for baroque music. Uneven articulations, improvisation, and emphasis on the dance rhythms that infuse almost all music from that time create a sound that at least seems to speak from that time. Even if it doesn't, it sounds a lot better than forcing excessive 19th-century expressiveness to it.

Hi, Bruce:

1. I thank you for pointing out that John Boe has suggested a different "take" on the Kyrie's than so many other authors. It seems to me that before one accepts the common convention, it may be worth it to look at what Boe has written, and see to what extent it can sway the commonly held theory. That is to say, it is always nice to know of scholars who are suggesting other possible developments, and their thoughts and the evidence they supply should be weighed and considered.

"2. The type-melodies that were adapted to myriad Latin texts were adjustable, so that as they were applied to texts of varying length and accentuation, the verbal accents were consistently aligned with the melody."

Absolutely, and sometimes these melodies were even re-arranged. But what is important about them is that they show how highly the Gregorian composers valued the melody, the beautiful cantilena. The musical line was so important to them that they had absolutely NO PROBLEM plugging hundreds of texts into these "skeleton" melodies. The results are gorgeous. However, the word accents themselves (evidently not considered of paramount importance) were treated with great freedom when they plugged the texts into these melodic formulas. Again, the results were gorgeous: right up there with the greatest masterpieces the world has ever known.
Haberl was wrong when he thought that "text setting" was a mere matter of the tonic accent: nothing could be further from the truth. The way the Gregorian composers honored the text was much deeper than the way that composers hundreds of years later would (like Bach and Handel and Mozart), where in many ways it was just a matter of hammering and emphasizing the tonic accent (which, in many Romance languages, had become rather prominent). Then, again, they often failed at this lesser task....(especially when adapting their earlier works to a new text in a different language in which they weren't totally comfortable, like e.g. Handel's Messiah).


"3.I think, in truth, that you are HOPING to find evidence that will discredit the semiologists' conclusions because you do not like them."

There is not all that much to dislike . . . so much is left to fancy, and "values" which have no absolute value. Give me something concrete to dislike, and perhaps I would....

But I have to confess that I am very skeptical of their scholarship, since they chose (when publishing the Triplex) to place 9th century neums above the NOTES of an 1868 edition. This is not an auspicious beginning. The first thing they need to do is to correct this major (unforgivable?) error that they have made, and then go from there.

"But you cannot call this the music of the Gregorian composers, according to your own arguments."

They are based on the manuscripts (see above). No one questions this. I have argued that it would have been better to not make a reconstruction at all, but go off of individual MSS without chaning a note (see above). Bruce agrees (see above).

What is questionable is whether the early adiastematic St. Gall MSS are the only legitimate chant. Also, as I've pointed out, putting rhythmic markings (that we don't have certainty about) above melodies that we can be sure they were not singing is not good scholarship. People are free to do it, but not to insist that anyone else does it.

"According to your logic you cannot say that these melodies are "gorgeous" because you cannot say with certainty that you know what the Gregorian composers actually composed. You cannot say with certainty that you have ever actually heard these melodies."

I am afraid I do not understand this. (1) I have heard and seen seen Gregorian MSS in person (in libraries), in books, and on the internet ---- (2) we have thousands and thousands of pages of music by the Gregorian composers and there is no question about the notes they were singing (however, this is not true for the earliest MSS of the St. Gall school) ---- (3) the results are gorgeous.

This fact of melodic re-employment was in answer to another question, by the way (see above).

"through deduction chant scholars can firmly say that the manuscripts agree 90% of the time."

This is not true. If they were singing quarter tones, as many scholars think they were, the accuracy would probably be like 10%. Or, it is possible that we have some chants that match with 100% accuracy. We simply don't know. The point is, there are many more editions that are "closer" to St. Gall than Pothier's 1868 edition. It was very lazy to use this edition as the basis for the Triplex.