....Taken From http://www.chantcafe.com/ .....

Neumes and “rhythmic signs”[32]

It has become customary to use this term for three signs added by the Solesmes editions to XX century books of chant: the dot, the vertical episema and the horizontal episema.

These three signs have been abandoned in our edition for the following reasons.

The dot and the vertical episema do not correspond to any traditional information about Gregorian chant. They do not appear in any medieval manuscript and have only been introduced into Solesmes editions in order to promote a rhythmic theory of Gregorian chant (based on the views propounded in Le Nombre Musical Grégorien), which has long since been demonstrated to be obsolete. Moreover, they have shown themselves to be in contradiction with the elementary principles of reading medieval neumes. More precisely, this rhythmic theory, to the extent that it inflicts a rhythmic distortion on the words and phrases that are chanted, appears in contradiction to the elementary principles of liturgical music composition, which must be set fundamentally at the service of the sacred text.

The horizontal episema only appears in two or three medieval manuscripts of the office out of several hundred documents which have come down to us. It is not a rhythmic sign, but an expressive one. It does not inform the singer about basic rhythm, it only indicates – and that in a way very ambiguous for a XX century singer[33] – a minute nuance of rhythm (called agogic by musicians for the last century).

Most amateur choirs are incapable of producing such subtle nuances, which are the preserve of experienced soloists, and the exaggerated interpretation they give to them leads them in the end to distort the underlying rhythm of such simple Gregorian pieces as antiphons, a rhythm based on the declamation of the text and the flow of the melody.

It is for this reason that we have chosen not to use these signs, following the principle set out at the end of the preface of Liber hymnarius:

“The principles set out here stem from the perfect matching of the sacred text with the Gregorian melody. This is why those who in singing strive to respect Latin diction, possess by this very fact most of what is required to execute Gregorian chant well.”[34]

Before fixing on these choices, many pieces were tried out in various communities and choirs, and in sessions which brought together monastic choirmasters and choirmistresses. This procedure made it possible to keep a constant balance between practical requirements,and the demands of musicological criticism on the one hand, and of litugical pastoral needs on the other.

It is immediately clear to all who try them out that the essential thing with these little antiphons is, as Dom Gajard knew by intuition, “the line”.

“A very pure line of syllabic sounds, just what is needed for the text to be pronounced… A little rise, followed by its fall, a tiny protasis followed by its apodosis, and that’s all; a few notes are enough. No ornamentation, no seeking after effect. Just the line.”[35]

The line of the word first, the musical line afterwards. There is no more need for rhythmic signs than for palaeographic neumes to give the right interpretation to these antiphons.

Such reasoning could not be applied to ornate pieces, like the long responsories and graduals of the Office.[36] There, melismatic style and complex melodic developments necessitate a few reference points. Almost everywhere in the world today, those who perform this ornate repertoire refer to the Graduale Triplex, in which the Vatican edition’s melodic writing is clarified by neumes from the oldest manuscripts. This is why the most ornate pieces in our edition of the antiphoner (long responsories, Christus factus est and Haec dies of Easter) are enhanced with medieval neumes.

These neumes are not intended for all singers, since many in the monasteries sing by memory and imitation. On the other hand, they will be useful for choir directors and for informed amateurs in providing objective indications on which to base their interpretation.

The more I read, the more Roger Wagner was right: "Sing it as though it were MUSIC."

My world has been turned upside down.

Here again, the Hiley book is very useful for putting all of this into perspective. There is reason to doubt any strict dogma on these matters. I like the old Solesmes notation because that's what I'm used to and reduces the room for error when singing with groups.

Unhhhh...yah, several times.

Would you believe Roger eating dinner at McDonald's? You can. He did.

That remark about "...as though it were music" was his advice to me after I told him I wasn't sure that all that Solesmes/Mocqereau stuff (the preface to the Liber) was within my understanding.

It was the best advice I'd ever gotten.

Steve, you really learned Solesmes from Michael Jackson in the 1980's, when he was at the height of his fame????!!!

Thank you to all for your comments! Yes, I realized this really wasn't news, with the chant scholarship of the last 50 years much of it coming from Solesmes itself, it was inevitable. However, what I thought was important was the strongest repudiation yet of Mocquereau's Method coming from Solesmes printed in the introduction of one of their latest Chant books. Though the introduction was for the Antiphonale Monasticum, it is obvious from thumbing through the new Vesperale, the Antiphonale Romanum, that the same principles are being followed, and probably will be followed for subsequent publications. In the world of Chant, I thought this seemed to be newsworthy as books "ornamented with the Solesmes rhythmic markings" have been a part of our musical lives for nearly a century.

I think that it needs to be clarified that the Saulnier text is not *the* introduction to Antiphonale Monasticum (as in an official introduction printed at the start of book) but rather comes from a talk he gave introducing the Antiphonale Monasticum.

If we're looking for the last official word on how to sing chant from Solesmes, it's the official intro to the Liber Hymnarius.

It's important to realize that Daniel Saulnier [formerly "Dom"] is no longer a Solesmes monk; the current director at Solesmes, Dom Bruno, has returned to the classical Solesmes method with great success; and the most recent publication of Solesmes—the 2012 Gregorian Missal—retains 100% of Mocquereau's ictus & episemata.

That's SOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo funny, Salieri. I'm very sorry that you are distressed, but your reaction had me in stitches.

Well, then, there we have it!
Since there were no recording devices a thousand years ago and since chant scholars and musicologists can't possibly give us reliable information (they are, after all, 'unbelievers'), voila, Mocquereau's 'intuition', aided by his very Victorian and romantic imagination, will do. Balderdash!

And semiology? Who needs that when our romanticised imaginations are happy with the so-called 'Classic Solesmnes Method' (not to mention that some of our reputations and life's teaching are at stake). But wait, it just so happens that there were recording devices a thousand years ago. No, not sound recording, but the written records of Frankish scribes which, it is becoming ever more clear, give us a very clear notion of how chant was sung a thousand years ago. True, we cannot clone the sound of it, but we can have relative certitude of style, delivery, and neume-text relationships. It will take more than a change of personell and wishful thinking to make of the 'Classic Solesmes Method' any more than a very pretty (depending on who's doing it) daydream.

And, just because Daniel Saulnier is, so it is said, no longer a monk at Solesmes doesn't logically lead to the assumption that his teaching is false. In fact, it very well may imply just the opposite. One thing is certain, the Frankish scribes left no record of icti, vertical episemas, dots, and all manner of other ephemera and blarney invented to keep the 'Classic Solesmes Method' afloat. They did, though, leave us a rich vocabulary of symbols which the 'Solesmes Method' coterie are content to ignore.

Next, they'll be telling us that Justine Ward knew more about chant than Columba Kelly!

the most recent publication of Solesmes—the 2012 Gregorian Missal—retains 100% of Mocquereau's ictus & episemata.

I wouldn't read too much into this. They merely re-engraved the music from the previous edition, which ultimately is a more English-user-friendly edition of the 1974 Graduale, which we all know is almost entirely the same in terms of the musical editions of the chants as the 1908 Graduale.

It would silly for a 2012 English Missal to be the vehicle to release entirely new editions of these chants. We'll have to wait to see what the new edition of the Solesmes Graduale looks like - and if it appears in any of our lifetimes.

I think one of the byproducts of Bartlett's Lumen Christi Series is the raising of a generation of American/English-speaking Church Musicians trained in singing chant sans ictus & sans dots.

I once gave a workshop for (non choir) people in chant and I decided to go with 'Old Solesmes' because that's still sort of the flavor of the day as far as chant interpretation in concerned (even though my choir doesn't use it), but I decided to use mostly vernacular music (the attendees sang the propers of the Mass during the evening liturgy, quite well actually) from the then-new Lumen Christi series, and the SEP (Ordinary was in Latin). No ictus in either of these books, and no dots in the former.

I quickly discovered in prepping this course that the traditional Solesmes method is completely incompatible with English Plainchant! It's only practical use is with Latin - which makes sense, since that is the language its theories were based on, and what it was intended for. (Latin and English word-stress is different, and it is Latin word-stress that the ideas of arsis, thesis and ictus come from.) I used the terms of Mocquereau, (arsis, thesis, ictus) but applied them, as I thought would make the most sense, to English. Yet I still had to go with Cardine/Bartlett's principle that the words come first and lengths of notes should be altered according to the text: that not all puncta are created equal. A very strict Mocquereauvian interpretation of English Plainchant results in a stilted, robotic English, since all syl-la-bles are gi-ven the same du-ra-tion. (YMMV)

I was thinking about this this morning: Vernacular liturgy is so entrenched at this point that a gradual process will have to be had to return to Latin. I.e. if Pope "Marcellus III" ("Cardinal" Fellay - we can all dream, can't we?) were to wish to reverse the liturgical mess and re-institute the traditional Mass en masse, his only recourse would be to the 1965 Missal, which includes the possibility of the Vernacular in addition to Latin, not plopping the '62 (or better the pre-Pius XII Missal) on everyone. Bartlett's books could still be used, just altered for the Traditional Calendar - Still no dots or ictus. When the Latin Liturgy is fully implemented, I wouldn't be surprised if musicians raised on English (or other vernacular) plainchant composed from a semiological perspective wouldn't automatically gravitate towards the pure Vatican Edition, to which can easily be applied the semiological interpretation that Bartlett, Kelly, Morse, Cole, Schaefer, and others, are inculcating into people, or, indeed, the Novum (or Triplex).

Also, the old Solesmes books with all of the (19th Century) rhythmic markings remind me of the old G. Schirmer editions with all of the (19th Century) interpretive markings inflicted on Bach and Handel.

Salieri, that really started with Fr. Columba Kelly's English chant. Our folks have gotten used to figuring out who the composer of an English chant is based on how the quarter bar "feels"!

"But wait, it just so happens that there were recording devices a thousand years ago."

„Even so, there are – let us say it once again to conclude – so many things that the writing cannot transmit: the pronunciation (vocalization and articulation), the accentuation, micro-tones, the vocal technique of another age... without counting the ten centuries of civilization that separate us from the mind set of the first notators.“
Dom Daniel Saulnier: Gregorian chant, Solesmes 2003, p. 126

Actually, Richard, that "and" works: The Latin (and English) actually emphasizes a good point: We can't just take up our cross and moan about it; we must take up our cross AND follow him: in trust with meekness and docility, since his yoke is easy and his burden light.

Once you figure out how to decode the propers, each one of them really is a sermon, and a better sermon than most Catholics hear from the pulpit each Sunday.

Anyone who thinks that Mocquereau was against semiology should have a look at his personal copy of the gradual:

The Graduale Triplex contains the best readings from various St. Gall MSS and Laon. It is an updated version of:

The Graduel Neume, a publication of Dom Cardine's person Graduale in which he transcribed the best St. Gall MSS readings, which was his own version of:

Dom Mocquereau's personal Gradual into which he transcribed the neums of St. Gall.

Dom Cardine learnt Semiology at the knee of his teacher and mentor, Dom Mocquereau.

the so called Solesmes method was never practiced at Solesmes. In fact Dom Cardine entered the monastery as a great admirer of this method and was very disappointed to learn that the Solesmes community didn't sing according to the "method".

Actually, that's a myth. In terms of the "counting" (1-2…1-2-3 and so forth) the monks never did any of that, because they sang these pieces over and over again—year after year, decade after decade—starting in the late 19th century. There was absolutely no need for them to do any "counting."

However, the hundreds of recordings by Dom Gajard (created over a period of 30-40 years) without question adhere to the classic Solesmes method. In fact, Gajard believed in Mocquereau's method more "strictly" than Mocquereau himself… I'm unaware of any serious publication ever making the claim that these recordings do not adhere to the classic Solesmes method.

There's a rumor that Gajard basically chased ("expelled") Cardine from the monastery to Rome since their personalities clashed, but I've never been able to substantiate that rumor. However, the fact remains that Dom Cardine was never made choirmaster of the Abbey, whereas Gajard held that post for most of his adult life, winning innumerable awards for his conducting.

From Adam Bartlett's introduction to Lumen Christi Simple Gradual: (He gives a short musical example that contains all of these items, their place in this list reflects their placement in the example.)

Punctum: A single note, having the same rhythmic value of the syllable to which it is attached
Podatus (Pes): Sung smoothly from bottom to top; a bit more quickly than a punctum
Clivis: Sung like the podatus, only from top to bottom (left to right)
Quarter Bar: A brief pause in the singing, sometimes, but not always requiring a breath
Bivirga: Two notes that are connected, but sung with a light repercussion on each note
Pressus: The first two notes are repercussed, followed by a quick and fluid movement toward the third note
Torculus: Three notes (low-high-low) that are sung smoothly and slightly more quickly than they would be sung on their own
Full bar: A pause in the singing that typically corresponds to a punctuated period in the text
Custos: A sign that is found at the end of a line which guides the singer to the note that follows on the next line (the custos is not actually sung)
Climacua: The first note is sung as a punctum, while the second and third notes are sung more quickly and lightly, falling away from the first note
Liquescent: A smaller note that can rise above or drop below a note; The liquescent note is typically sung as a voiced consonant
Episema: A line above or below any neum, or part of a neum, which slightly stretches or lengthens the note or notes that it is placed over
Half bar: A pause in the singing that warrants a breath, but that is not conclusive
Quilisma: Sung fluidly from bottom to top; The first note is slightly lengthened, the second is an unstable note that is sung quickly and lightly without emphasis, and the third note receives length and emphasis as the clear point of arrival
Porrectus: Three notes (high-low-high), that are sung fluidly, more quickly, and tending toward the last note
Double bar: A conclusive end to a musical setting.

In my personal application of this, regarding the bars: since the word 'pause' is used I interpret that not as stopping, but as a lengthening - pausa = fermata. The rough length being based on text and context, but generally the pausa at the quarter bar is shorter than that at a half bar, which is shorter than that at a full bar, etc. All of these lengthenings are (generally) treated as a point of rest.

This differs from my interpretation of the horizontal episema, which is really not a sign of length but of expression, though often this expression is accompanied by a lengthening of the note(s) to which it is attached. There are various reasons why this expression is given to a certain note, it could be that the note itself is important in the piece (i.e. dominant of the mode), or the word to which it is sung is important, etc.

The comma (which is NOT a breath mark), which Bartlett doesn't mention in the introduction, I interpret as being a simple break in the sound - no lengthening before the comma, just (as Jeff. Tucker says in his introduction to SEP) a 'sliver of light' coming through.

In the main I try to maintain a difference in interpretation between the lengthenings at barlines/mora vocis/dot and the horizontal episema.

I hope this is (somewhat) helpful.

It's very helpful. Thanks, Salieri. I was just reading about this in the foreword of my Liber Usualis the other day:

"The dynamic value of the ictus or rhythmic step varies considerably. Sometimes it is strong, sometimes weak; everything depends on the syllable to which it corresponds and the position it occupies in the melody. The fact therefore that this intensity varies is a proof that the ictus belongs not to the dynamic but to the rhythmic order; its being and influence are contributed and felt by elements from the melody and the text. The expression "the ictus is more in the mind than in the voice", has sometimes been misunderstood. The meaning will, perhaps, be clearer if we say that it is felt and intimated by tone of voice rather than expressed by any material emphasis."

When we began singing the propers of the G.R., I diligently marked our copies with the ictus marks, and it made a world of difference in the way we approached them. I could not make much musical sense of them without the ictus marks and couldn't really comprehend the melodic line.

What really helped actually, was studying the phrasing of the Bragers accompaniment which follows the Solesmes method as far as I can tell, and this helped me enormously in learning where the ictus marks go, along with much study of the Dr. Marier's chant CD and book. We only used the accompaniment for a year, but it was very helpful.

However, after three years of singing the propers, we are much better able to "feel" the ictus without over-emphasizing it in some way, which we probably did in the very beginning.

As I have said, I don't use the "Solesmes Method", but I do use Brager's accompaniments a fair bit, also those of Dom Desroquettes, O.S.B., who I think was one of the greats of Gregorian accompaniment. I have found that these accompaniments work naturally to support the singing, without imposing an unnatural rhythm on the music. I must admit, however, that I occasionally move a chord-change a note or two forward of back if I feel it will help lead a congregation (most of these accompaniments were really written to support a choir lead by a conductor), especially at points of alternation, e.g. after the cantor's intonation.

If you are unfamiliar with Desroquette's accompaniments look into them, they are masterpieces of simplicity.

This is where the old method fails, it is counter intuitive to modern musicians in the shape of the conductive patters, and actually requires retraining of people (which kinda wastes time in rehearsal - esp. if you only meet once a week for 1-1/2 hours and have a boat-load of music). And in English, which is based on a different system of accentuation it just ain't gonna work.

It seems to me ictus markings are not only a great help for the director, but even more so for your average schola member who just sings chant once/week and who doesn't have much time to devote to the study of the propers.

This is where I'm fascinated by the varying points of view on ictus - because in this case, the viewpoints differ, but the reason is the same. Quote 1 advances the viewpoint that using the ictus makes things take longer in rehearsal. Quote 2 advances the viewpoint that using the ictus makes things take less time in rehearsal.

I guess it depends with whom you're working. If one is working with a choir on varied repertoire of music - English and Latin in varying degrees of chant, Renaissance, Classical, Romantic, 20th-Century, and contemporary, I must say I feel the ictus will be neither intuitive nor helpful to your group - at least not in giving them a common set of skills to deal with all of the music with which the group intends to give stylistically appropriate readings.

If all you're doing is chant, maybe there's something to the ictus, but as a conductor I've found it's much easier to get a group to become fluent in various styles as quickly as possible by keeping as much of the style absent in the learning process (bland, if you will), and then adding stylistic elements as you go - or more specifically, when you hear the ensemble start to deviate from bland to the *wrong* style. This means they're ready to start interpreting it - or start adding style. That's the cue to say, "no, sing it this way..." (or praise and encourage them if they insert the correct style elements, or teach them what to do if they take no initiative).

But learning notes is for me more efficient when the group doesn't have to think about style - at least if they're not capable of doing all that at the same time. I'd venture to say most average parish choirs are not that capable - at least not until they've had years of experience singing in a ton of different styles appropriately.

SIDE NOTE - I wonder if my feelings on this are in any way tied to my detest for conducting most Renaissance music in two - as is in vogue among choral conductors today, saying the lines will sing themselves. Maybe in a choir of singers with degrees that included significant study of Renaissance music the lines will indeed sing themselves. Or when a conductor takes significant rehearsal time to work on the shape of the lines with each section individually. But I think most choirs need to be shown the shape - which means the conductor must do something other than beating every half measure. There's simply too much music that needs to happen during the course of each half-measure for the conductor to give up the opportunity to show the intervening beat - maybe not strongly, but with shape and expression.

Conductors: hint - your "proper" technique only matters if your group sounds good.

Regarding "Solesmes method," I have much respect for most (many? all?) of the people who respect it. I've even had people convince me it's the only answer in certain situations. I've yet to have someone convince me it is right for all situations and/or it's right for me. I look forward to that.

While you're fine-tuning your response, Noel - here's my primary objection to where I've seen most people go with :

it is counter intuitive to modern musicians in the shape of the conductive patters,

There's a reason for this and it does not fail

Most people continue this with something along the lines of: "It's a different style, and we don't want it to sound like modern music, so we must use different techniques."

I don't buy it. Modern choral professionals use similar conducting gestures along with good modeling and interpretive direction to conduct everything from Dufay to Palestrina to Mozart to Bruckner to Webern to spirituals, and the unity of gesture simplifies the process. If all of those composers sound different stylistically (and they should!), it's only because the conductor knows how to inform the performance.

I'll say it again - if all you do is chant, I can buy it - but if a group is working in other styles, it seems silly that the genre that begot the others should require radically different conducting technique than that devised and commonly accepted for leading its stylistic children.

Again, if it works for someone and gets them a better result, more power to them in my book... but if we've already got a system in place - and the choral world of 2014 definitely does (and which, as a big aside, I'm not sure I could say about the choral world of Mocquereau's time), I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel here.

Two practical (I hope) observations about the episema. The vertical is a useful guide in the more complex passages, and the horizontal a constraint on flow that's very difficult to correct if people have been doing it for years. That is all.

I am starting to dis like chant

I hope that isn't because of these arguments. That would sort of be like not liking baseball anymore because two pitchers disagree on the best way to throw strikes.