There was a discussion about stemless notation with Finale vs. Sibelius some time ago. In it, I posted how it can be done rather easily, together with a "worksheet" PDF illustrating just how it was done for my setting of 'The morning star is on the rise' ... the relevant forum page is (the worksheet is fairly far down the thread):

https://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/12198/the-great-debate-finale-vs.-sibelius/p1

This approach really does remove the tedium of separately counting notes for each "measure" and setting a time signature for each ... my trick is to start with all 1 beat (1/4) measures (hidden time signature, of course), combine measures as necessary for "neumes" or melismas, using invisible barlines and altered default spacing before and after "music" in each measure (these are all set at the beginning, or even incorporated into a stemless chant notation Finale template). Feel free to contact me for more information or help.

Lilypond supplies helpful examples, called snippets :-
Ancient notation template – modern transcription of gregorian music

This example demonstrates how to do modern transcription of Gregorian music.
Gregorian music has no measure, no stems; it uses only half and quarter note heads,
and special marks, indicating rests of different length.

\include "gregorian.ly"

chant = \relative c' {
\set Score.timing = ##f
f4 a2 \divisioMinima
g4 b a2 f2 \divisioMaior
g4( f) f( g) a2 \finalis
}

verba = \lyricmode {
Lo -- rem ip -- sum do -- lor sit a -- met
}

\score {
\new Staff <<
\new Voice = "melody" \chant
\new Lyrics = "one" \lyricsto melody \verba
>>
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
\remove "Bar_engraver"
\hide Stem
}
\context {
\Voice
\override Stem.length = #0
}
\context {
\Score
barAlways = ##t
}
}
}

(click on the picture to see it properly ! )

It's the same way with Finale templates.

Thanks, everyone. I'll tinker with the snippet and give LilyPond a try, also CHGiffen's link. I do want to repeat that I'm interested in standard stemmed round notes, not stemless. I think a couple of you misread that above.

Hello again everyone! Do any of you have experience using Dorico for modern notation chant? We have some extra money in the music fund at year end and I'm considering purchasing this software. I have achieved nice looking results with Sibelius, but it really take a lot of work, including much dragging and dropping with the mouse, which unfortunately results in carpal tunnel pain for me. I'm hoping there's an easier way to get more consistent note spacing.

Here's an example of stemless notation made with Lilypond:

Here's a stemless version of the Mode I Pange lingua gloriosi ("Another chant" from pp.950-952 in the LU).

ServiamScores is forever singing the praises of Dorico, so I hope he'll see your post and chime in!

Yes I am! Lol!

I love Dorico. Love, love, love it. For chant transcriptions, I think it is one of the best options available because it supports truly open meter music. In fact, when you start a project, there are no bars and there is no meter at all. There are simply staves waiting for you to do something. Consequently, you can type in phrases of irregular length, and then just plop barlines (tick, half, full, double, ... whatever) wherever you want them. If you make a mistake and need to add or subtract, it's as simple as using the shift+b "popover" to add or subtract beats and you can add or take them away anywhere in any bar. There is also "insert" mode which can shift everything very quickly.

You can also hide any rests you want very easily. This makes for doing NOH style accompaniments very easy because the number of beats doesn't have to match (Dorico will calculate the correct number of beats, but you can override that and hide them anyway). Put notes where you need them in the accompaniment to line up, and then press a hotkey and hide the unneeded rests, and boom, you're golden.

Also, Dorico is just about to release a new version (right after New Years) so if you buy a copy of it now, you'll get a free upgrade to version 4.0 in a few weeks.

The quality of the engraving is excellent, too.

I'm attaching one of the pew cards that I made for our parish, a funerary hymn which I wrote and rendered an NOH esque accompaniment for, and lastly one of my chant-based psalm settings.

In this last example, I was able to add the image of the chant at the top from within Dorico itself via an images frame.

Edit: I forgot to mention that you can control oodles of defaults, so you can change note spacing both in quantity and ratio to other notes, and then there is a dedicated "note spacing" sub-mode within the engraving area where you can manually space notes as well to get them just right.

There is no way that coding into lilypond is the “fastest”, lol. It might look fantastic, but you have to be ready for the working model, and the barrier to entry is high.

Thank you all! Here is Gloria Patri VII as an example of what I'm trying to do:

You will notice a key signature, sixteenth-note acciaccatura grace note with slur for the intio debilis note at the beginning, quarter ("tick") bar lines, small notes for the liquescents at Sancto and semper, and glissando/portamento for the quilisma at saeculorum. It took me about twenty minutes in Sibelius, but this syllabic chant did not require extensive changes to note spacing. Would it be easier to get equivalent or better results with Lilypond or Dorico?

Here's a Lilypond version of that GP:

It took me about 40 minutes to create this from scratch, though a chunk of that time was spent in trying to imitate unusual details of the score, such as the representation of the quilisma. What notation did you use for that? Mine was a long prall, shifted and rotated.

(PS: I missed notating the liquescents with a small note head. It would just take a few seconds more to do that.)

Thank you both!

the quilisma. What notation did you use for that

In Sibelius 7.5, it's labeled Glissando (wavy).

I use Capella. It's a little pricey ($248 in US funds), but I like that you don't have to insert time signatures (most make you do so), and just insert bars wherever you'd like. Also, you can draw quarter bars and half bars freehand. Overall, I find it very powerful.
My work in progress, "Christus Vincit Gradual" is done with Capella.
http://cvmusic.christusvincit.com/
Capella Website: (company is German-based, but you can get the software in German, English, or French)
https://www.capella-software.com/us/
BMP

@ServiamScores you missed the liquescents. :) EDIT: nevermind!

And how do you get the third line to terminate early?

7 Add barlines (quarter bars and normal bars are separate one-click options from a selection)

BTW: it's really easy to add these as you go via the barline popover. Shift+B works while you are in note entry mode, (and you don't exit note entry mode when you invoke this option) so you can be in the middle of putting in the notes, and plop the barlines in as you go.
You'd type in:
"tick" or '
half
| (pipe character) or "normal"
|| for double

Here's the page that has the shortcuts you can type in: https://steinberg.help/dorico_pro/v3.5/en/dorico/topics/write_mode/write_mode_notations_input/write_mode_bars_barlines_popover_r.html

It is a little hard not to imagine: this:

It is a little hard not to imagine: this:

Do fa mi fa sol LA for mode VII? Bizarre.

I think Richard meant the rhythm.

I don't think his transcription demonstrates a solid understanding of the torculus initio debilis. As for the double note values on the reciting tone, see the above examples.

Madorganist, I think he understands just fine. He’s questioning the method of representation in your example, and observing that the rhythm that may be implied is what he posted.

(This, for the record, is why I use stemless transcriptions. With stemless people are much more apt to sing in natural speech rhythm. It’s difficult to “deprogram” choirs to not imply rhythm when stems are present, at least in my experience.)

Many transcriptions that use stemmed notation use all eighths, or all quarters (with dots added in where needed) but don’t whiplash between eighths and quarters like this, to avoid this very pitfal.

(This, for the record, is why I use stemless transcriptions. With stemless people are much more apt to sing in natural speech rhythm. It’s difficult to “deprogram” choirs to not imply rhythm when stems are present, at least in my experience.)

Many transcriptions that use stemmed notation use all eighths, or all quarters (with dots added in where needed) but don’t whiplash between eighths and quarters like this, to avoid this very pitfal.

In case it was not clear enough from previous comments and examples, the mensuralist transcription in the style of Murray is meant to indicate measured, proportional rhythm. I would counter that choirs who are accustomed to accentualist, "free," or "nuanced" styles of interpretation experience difficulty reading Gregorian notation in strictly proportional rhythm, i.e. with all longs exactly double shorts, but we know from contemporaneous writings that that's how it was actually sung.

According to Jan van Biezen:

It has to follow that the psalm verses in an Introit (or Communion) shall be sung faster than the associated antiphon, even though one favors the calm, deliberate, full pronunciation of the psalm verses—and not the usual machine-gun-like reciting employed under the guise of 'oratorical rhythm.'

But his translator, Kevin Rooney, points out in a footnote that

Actually, the Commemoratio brevis calls for an exception in the canticles, the Benedictus and Magnificat, "which are sung so slowly that their antiphon should follow at the same tempo" (translation by Terence Bailey). Since the psalm verses of Introit and Communion show the same solemnity of decoration as the canticles, it follows that they too are to be sung at the same tempo as their antiphons, i.e. half the tempo of the normal psalm verses.

So, this is a matter of some controversy. Why not seek out a performance practice that corresponds to the evidence of the oldest sources?

There’s also the very real possibility that the “earliest” sources are wrong, or more likely, only accounting for a snapshot in time at one particular place. It’s very possible that the performance practice was even corrupted by the time they were writing, or that what they observed was neither universal nor “best” practice.

It’s my understanding that the living tradition of chant had nearly died by the time it was revived in the 19th century which is why there were multiple theories in circulation about its proper interpretation. To be perfectly frank, as someone who has done a reasonable amount of chanting and led choirs in it for a few years, I cannot fathom not singing in natural speech rhythm. That’s not to say that we don’t observe some of the expected articulations, particularly lengthening at cadences, or that the rhythm of speech is unregulated or uneven. But it is to say that we do what makes the best sense aurally, not unlike how verses of Anglican chant are handled.

But, wading into historical particularities is above my pay grade and I have to get back to prepping for tonight.

a text-based interpretation that harmonizes with the remainder of the chants of the Mass.

Which chants would those be? The collect, epistle, gospel, and other chants sung according to a formula are accentus, liturgical recitative, but the choral chants are something different, concentus. It's a bit like saying that recitatives, arias, choruses, and chorales all require the same style of interpretation. (In fact, I worked with a colleague who insisted on a "chant-like" recitation of the opening bars of "The Lord gave the word" in Handel's Messiah instead of a robust, double-dotted declamation, if you can imagine).

Would the tropes of the Kyrie make musical sense unless the notes were more or less equal? Can we deduce that, at the time they were written, performance was without the trills and catches one hears in some modern interpretations.

I worked with a colleague who insisted on a "chant-like" recitation of the opening bars of "The Lord gave the word" in Handel's Messiah instead of a robust, double-dotted declamation, if you can imagine).

And yet the practice of double-dotting itself that you describe is precisely the kind of historical fiction that I mentioned, developing of necessity from the slow tempi of the nineteenth century and yet having no support whatsoever from any contemporary documents, as well as being a completely unworkable concept from an ensemble standpoint. It is these flawed proclamations and others that make me more skeptical of the period performance movement as I grow older.

You see that I, too, am skeptical of performance practices that have no support whatsoever from any contemporary documents.

Yes, but I don't propose that my interpretative approach, which is one of many after all, is the only true or even the most correct method for all of Christendom.