Is that all? At this rate, I'm going to get you to agree to pass out copies of the Triplex to your local congregation with flowers in your hair!

I give the congregation chant notation. I don't expect they will read the notes any time soon from the notation, maybe never. (Most of them don't read modern notation either anyway.) They might feel very foriegn to them at first, but they will get used to seeing it. I give them every week. I even hand them out personally with smiles, if somehow they didn't get them. I want them to get used to seeing them. Just help them to familiarize with the chant notation. I started to notice that some are trying to sing ordinary parts from the chant notation. If people are chased away because of the notation, they will be chased away by the chant singing too. My belief is that chant singing goes with chant notation, not seperable. ( I know I'm very stubburn, but only in certain things)

Now I should temper my remarks to say that I'm not here to condemn anyone who does distribute neumes, nor will I rip up a bulletin and storm out of a church if given a worship resource with neumes. It's a matter that, unless my mind is significantly changed, I will never distribute neumes to a congregation. My order of preference is 1) good modern notation (noteheads only, open and filled) 2) bad modern notation (see WLP's chant hymns) 3) text only 4) neumes. That said, Pes's views on what he'd give a congregation mean nothing to me when evaluating the tract, which I find exceptional. He might pass it out to people in his congregation, I would pass it out to choristers only, as I've often gotten complaints about reading neumes. My reasons for opposing neumes for congregations are as follows:

1) Lack of familiarity. When people see something they don't recognize, their first thought is "I won't understand this" and they don't try. We see this with Latin. Perhaps many here have superb parishes where people's faces light up at the sound of Latin, or maybe some live in a fantasy land, but in parishes I've been in, a hymn in Latin means the hymnal gets opened up, glanced at, and then slammed and put away while the congregation pouts in the pew. And that's just Latin. It's understandable somewhat, I'd probably react the same way with Japanese (actually I wouldn't, but I'm also more intellectually curious than the average American). Chant notation adds another level of offense and intimidation for people. Even for congregations that do want to sing chant (no one sings from the pews at an EF Mass, but let's pretend they do) it still sends that intimidation message. Modern notation says "This is just like any other music you sing at Mass, if you can sing that, you can sing this," and that's a message I want to send.

2) It's not that easy. If it were just squares on lines with a C in the beginning, that's easy. But you have to deal with the porrectus, pes (pun intended), porrectus, flat (which someone might think is a note), pressus, liquescents, et cetera (as in and so on, not a neume). Yes, one can easily be taught to read these and even interpret them well. And how many people in your congregation are willing to take a class in how to read music? If you can get a majority of them to sign up, I'll grant you your square notes.

3) It impairs progress in learning modern notation. I have a theory that if one were to lock a person in a room with music playing and a score of the music, they would learn to read the notation (and maybe pick up perfect pitch) although it may take years. Unfortunately the conventions surrounding torture forbid me from carrying out such an experiment, but I think it parallels how we learn language. I can't suspect it would help a child learn English if they have a parent that also speaks Japanese, although again this is something that should be tested if it weren't for the darn ethics. No, I don't believe church is the place to learn music, but it doesn't hurt and we shouldn't go out of our way to confuse people.

4) Neumes are superior for the amount of information they convey, however this information is irrelevant to the congregation. Pitch suffices, and it matters not to any pew sitter whether there is a quilisma or a scandicus, they may easily follow the schola and/or organist. We should always give enough information for the congregation to participate, but probably not more. For example, we don't pass out scores to the congregation when we sing a motet, only (HOPEFULLY) the text and a translation.

I should add that, in an ideal situation, I would give the neumes to the congregation since they would know how to read them. This would also be my ideal situation where the congregation could all sing together the chants of the Roman Gradual and probably a couple polyphonic motets. And neumes should absolutely be taught at schools, and used for all school Masses from elementary school to DEFINITELY at colleges. But given the current situation, I don't think it's pastorally prudent.

I really don't want to continue on this topic as it's a distraction from Pes's wonderful tract and I'm certain will affect what a grand total of zero people do in their parishes. However, these are good points worth responding to:

"I have been told innuberable times both by people who could and could not read music that square notation was easier to read or to follow than modern notation."

My experience does not mirror yours. I have been told by choristers that it's unreadable. And by children. And by choristers who sang under me with that notation, with an explanation each and every time on how to read it, for two years. So maybe it was the rural locale, or my state is terribly stupid (it is a blue state), but I have never been told that it's easy to read or follow. Oh yes, and let's add in college-level music students.

"I learnt long ago that when people say 'I can't', they mean 'I don't want to' if not 'I won't'."

We're actually making the same point, towards different goals. People will say "I can't" and they always do mean "I don't want to," which winds up as "I won't." That's why I take away their excuse when I encounter that. They can't sing chant in neumes? Fine, I'll put it in modern notation. THEN explain to me why you're sitting in Mass reading the bulletin (I think Fr. Z calls that "participatio actuoso") instead of singing. When you use modern notation, you take away their ability to make a rational objection to chant.

Gavin sorry, but I'd like to respond to Pes' topic 'Why Square Notation?"
I don't think we can focus on which one is easier.(the argument will never will resolved even among the musicians.) It's about helping people getting familiarize with it and continuing the tradition in what you see and what you hear. I'd like to have our next generation know there is such thing as chant notation too.

I do use square notes exclusively in the Music booklets we distribute to the faithful... I think the only thing that is not fairly intuitive about square notes is the podatus. I include a short instruction on reading a podatus on the back of the booklet because of that. I haven't had any complaints so far. I think they are easier for a non-musician to read than modern notation and they also take up a LOT less space in the booklets.

I include a short instruction on reading a podatus on the back of the booklet because of that.

Janet, since you've already done it, would you mind posting a graphic we could paste in a Word document?

i'll read this thread more carefully later but let me say that I love print neumes for congregation precisely because they look different. The complex neumes don't appear in the people's chants anyway.

If you show the neum of the week in the bulletin, make sure it's in good size. This is not about whether I like the neum or not, or any individual. If this is not something you don't want to do , you don't have to. But if you want to help people to know that the chant is sung from the chant notation, there are many things you can do. I know it's more work, but people appreciate it. This also is not matter of easy, or not easy. Many people who don't know how to read music , I think, find it easier, people know how to read music get a bit confused at first. let them see it first. And let them see often as possible. If people don't even ever get to see it, how can they even think whether it's hard or not.
It's matter of familiarity. And if they are not familiar with it help them to be familiar with it. Most don't really sing from it, like they don't sing hymns from modern notation either. First thing is to make them familiar with it. If the chant notation is archaic, the chant is also archaic. Our tradition is archaic. It's like body and soul, cannot be seperated.

Here is a handout we used in Shreveport as an insert to the bulletin one week when our schola was singing for Mass each week. It is intended to be used as 1/2 of an 8.5" x 11" page.

Archaic?! Our lives are full of archaicisms, are they not? Because the custodians of our Culture and our Faith passed them on to us our lives are filled with and inestimably enriched by what only a philistine (present company excepted) would call archaic, anachronistic. We look at Fra Angelico, da Vinci; we listen to, sing or play chant, Perotin, Tallis, Monteverdi, Bach, and Mozart; we read Plato, Aquinas, and von Balthasar - or Homer, or Dickens; we go to see and hear Shakespeare or the opera, or chamber music; some among us may live in an archaic house; some go to ball games; some sculpt, paint or write; we all partake in a great number of societal rituals which would be anachronistic save that we value them and treasure our past as well as our present. We participate in a two thousand-year-old ritual called the Mass. A thing cannot be cast by the way-side simply because the few vociferous ones hawk that it is 'archaic' or 'hard'. We are the custodians of our musical heritage and it is not for us to deem an important aspect of that heritage out of date, but, with all our skill and love, to pass it on, teaching people to value it along with what is new that is worthy to stand in its shadow. With an appropriate attitude and approach it is astonishing what people can learn in spite of the noisome nay-sayers - and, they are pleased as punch at having learned it. Now, reading this notation is not really all that difficult.

Gavin, I'm a bit surprised, because you are a guy who are not timid, at least what I read from this forum. You don't like 'brick by 'brick approach, you said. You are the most energetic and break the wall with all might you have,and I admired that. If it's not so hard and some will get it and some don't ,like many other things. What are we afraid of?
The PBC, the PARISH book is in chant notation.
We are proud of our most sacred music, Gregorian chant. We sing Chant from chant notation. I want to share that beauty and joy without disguising it. I believe people will worry about a lot more difficult things in life than chant notaion.

Fair point regarding no pitches on the early neumes, and I accept your point that the notation was designed to do what it does, and I would say it is unbeatable for the "ictus method" of chanting. On the other hand, the Triplex preserves the pitches and the early neumes. Now, I reckon most here would say the early neumes are as irrelevant to quality chanting as can be. And that's a valid point of view, which I am presently inclined to agree with. I only point out that with the modern notation that former choirs of mine would want (but not get), they would have too little information; and a semiologist would say the same with our non-triplex copies.

I still wish to maintain my point about chant conveying more information, not less. I should correct myself, however: more RELEVANT information. The only musical information one can convey in modern notation (at least as I use it) is pitch and a tiny bit of relative duration. On the other hand, in chant notation one can express pitch, rhythmic values (depending on one's theories), shape of the line sung, stress, and so on. That's more of relevant information than one can notate using modern notation typesetting.

" We participate in a two thousand-year-old ritual called the Mass. A thing cannot be cast by the way-side simply because the few vociferous ones hawk that it is 'archaic' or 'hard'. We are the custodians of our musical heritage and it is not for us to deem an important aspect of that heritage out of date, but, with all our skill and love, to pass it on, teaching people to value it along with what is new that is worthy to stand in its shadow."

I am no fan of current church music. But things come into being, are useful, then die away and are replaced by something else. There is no two-thousand-year-old mass. Councils and popes have mangled and rewritten it numerous times. And with chant, we really have no idea what it sounded like. We sing it with modern voices and modern methods of singing. To our ears, hearing it as originally performed might be a horrible experience. It could have been beautiful, but it could also have been wretched. I think all here do try to pass on the sacredness and reverence of church music. But structures come and go, and sometimes they go for good reason.

Carl, if only 2% of Catholics take to liturgical restoration each year, we'll have the Church fully converted back in 50 years. Not bad! (And that's even without any compounding.)

Bravo, miacoyne! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!!!

Charles W - Thanks for your temperate and reasoned rebuttal. Of course, the Mass which we have is indeed the product of a long (and ongoing?) evolution; but, as we know, He who instituted its nucleus did so 2000 years ago. And, I have often thought, as have you, that we may not, could we have heard it, have thought the singing of early ages to have been particulaly nice. What style of vocal production was cultivated we will never know, though perhaps philologists can point us in the right direction. We may, I believe, be certain that the sound was not that of Solesmes or any other scholars or religious which we find on our various favoured CDs.The recordings of Marcel Perez and his Ensemble Organum have been informed by philology, manuscripts, Byzantine influence and intuition in the production of sound which may reasonably be thought to approach the singing of chant during the oral period.Their recordings represent much conjecture, but a highly and academically informed conjecture. You know, this entire discussion is one of intellectual honesty! Integrity!

PS - I believe that I sent you the Sarum 'O' Antiphons. Were they successful?

I give out neumes to the congregation. Congregations don't 'read' neumes, they mostly just follow the up and down motion. That is the most basic element of singing from any notation-the graphical representation of the pitch. Everything else is a nuance added to that element.

With the schola here, I don't present chant as something difficult to learn or to read or send them through hours of explanation or identifying neumes, etc.. I simply start them singing it and have them follow the up and down motion. No explanation is needed. If they have a question then I answer it for practicality sake out of their own curiosity. Otherwise, it is much simpler than all the 'method's of chant actually purport it to be.

We (professional musicians) tend to make things more difficult than it need be. We study every nuance, pen mark, ictus and all the rest. Those things are good to learn, but I don't believe they should ever prevent anyone singing chant from the first moment they pick up the page.

Oh... I forgot to say... IMHO, chant notation will always produce a better performance of chant. The shape of the square notes and the way they can touch each other creates a smoother performance of music and one can read many more square notes in a smaller amount of geographical space.

CharlesW - What of the Byzantine chant in your Byzantine parish? Is it really the old chant which some say remains an oral tradition? If so, is it highly ornamented or improvised upon? Is it written (notated) and then embellished by the cantor? Etc., etc.? Or, is it the rather romantic harmonised chant of more recent centuries? We have in Houston a Maronite parish, and about three or so Byzantine parishes.

Words are a more developed form of language than letters, expressing more than the sum of their parts.

Notes are like letters. Neumes are like words. Therefore neumes are better.

I think people underestimate their congregations a lot.

the music director in a parish I was once a part of thought Latin was too hard for his congregation. But they sang a chant Agnus Dei during Lent completely unaccompanied and sounded great. They had the whole thing memorized. If they can do that, why not a chant Sanctus? That's just as simple. Why not a chant Kyrie? And from there, if you provide some kind of notation, why not a chant Gloria, too? They could sing songs that had Latin verses and pronounce almost everything correctly, even.

Okay, so that congregation, during a Solemn Vespers once, didn't get the psalm tones and sounded kinda meh. That was the FIRST TIME they'd sung psalm tones this generation! ...Besides the pseudo-psalm tones that some Franciscan Friars used when they came here, a kind of intro to the concept that can be accompanied by strumming guitars. They do it that way for people, nonCatholics mostly, who are not familiar with chant at all. It is supposed to lead into the more beautiful kinds of psalm tones. Unfortunately, our choir director fell in love with it as is. :/ But I digress... with more practice, our congregation could get psalm tones. With just a little teaching about what all the pointed text means, they could totally get it.

At the liturgy of the hours people had the "salve regina" antiphon memorized in Latin too, and it was chant.

Just saying... a lot of times music directors assume the congregation can't learn something new... but they actually can. (Whether or not they will or want to depends from place to place.)

CharlesW - So, are you Ruthenians? I have read of Ruthenian churches in a diocese in the Great Lakes area that were closed by the bishop, who told the people that they had to go to the Roman Rite. Many of them responded by going Orthodox. What with what passes for the 'Roman Rite' these days, could anyone blame them? The leaden foot of blind, uncomprehending authority!

I like to take the approach that square notes are the right tool for the job. That is, the chant notation was developed for, and works very well for chant, so it's adapted to unison singing, linking together neums/notes and syllables, non-metric rhythm, non-fixed pitch, and the relatively narrow range of most chants. Modern notation developed from the earlier notation to accomodate multiple parts, harmony, metric rhythm, a wider range, fixed pitch, etc. Yes, it's a little extra work for someone trained in modern notation to learn the mechanics of square notation, but worth it to pick up what is needed to sing chant well.

janetgorbitz uses to this approach in the first paragraph of "Chant Notation Tips" above, which I think is good. I just wonder about the comment about the podatus taking one syllable or two, which doesn't seem right. By the way, don't forget the chant tutorial in the Parish Book of Chant.

As an aside about tools, a couple of days after Fr. Neuhaus's death, his magazine arrived, which included this sentence: "Give a boy a hammer, and he discovers a whole world in need of hammering." This recalls a childhood episode of receiving a saw as a gift. How many things I found (many of them indoors) that needed sawing!