I just skimmed it so no serious thoughts, other than the look is quite lovely (I’m not sure about all the line-broken words in the text part).. but I can’t believe I’m seeing dots in chant in 2023. Has Solesmes started using the dots again?

Well, the newest Solesmes Kyriale is from 2015, though newly engraved, it follows exactly the Kyriale in the 1974 Graduale Romanum, which reused the plates from the 1960 Graduale, so yes, in this instance dots, ictus marks, etc., are still used.

P.S., I haven't looked at the files yet, so I can't comment on them at the moment.

I'm sending a copy of the PDF with some notes to your e-mail address.

I think this all looks quite beautiful. The one thing that bothers me, in particular, is the irregular hyphenation. This is one of my main gripes with the GABC engine; we have little-to-no control over when/where it decides to add hyphens. (notably, you can add them to taste, but you cannot suppress them, so far as I'm aware) My own practice is to include them, and include them everywhere. Experienced chanters don't need them, but noobs do, and they can be particularly helpful for people who are not comfortable with Latin, helping them sound things out syllabically.

The problem in your document is that sometimes there are hyphens between all syllables, and sometimes there aren't, and then even adjacent chants have different hyphenation. Take page 22 for example:

Asperges me, Do-mine, hyssop-po, et munda-bor: la-va-bis me...
As-perges me, Domine, hysso-po, et mundabor: la-va-bis me...
Asperges me, Domi-ne, issopo, et munda-bor: la-va-bis me...

It needs to be an all or nothing, and certainly each repeated text needs to agree. At a minimum, I would add hyphens wherever pitch or neume grouping changes.

As-per-ges me, Do-mi-ne, hys-so-po, et mun-da-bor: la-va-bis me...


All of those niggles aside, what you've assembled is quite beautiful, and very well-done on the whole. You have a nack for creating beautiful books.

The notion that hyphens are an "all or nothing" proposition strikes me too as peculiar. One place where one might want to force them is when singing in a pronunciation that distinguishes between vowels in open and closed positions, for example Mozart's "Di-xit", "ju-stus", or my favorite, "de-xstris".

Richard

Is there actually a place in one of the books where dextris is hyphenated that way?

The notion that hyphens are an "all or nothing" proposition strikes me too as peculiar.

As stated, this is really to help people who need the help, and it also regularizes the edition so that everything presents the same.

The other reason is my OCD. I find it maddening when you have a word with three syllables, all on the same reciting pitch--but each with their own notes--and only one of the syllables is hyphenated and the others aren't. It's completely arbitrary and looks terrible. "Magnifi-cat" all on the same note makes no sense. Hence, I add the missing ones so the word looks and reads evenly. As an example in this case: page 18 of the first PDF: Glo-ri-a patri et fi-li-o. Patri has no hyphenation while fi-li-o is completely hyphenated. It is arbitrary and looks weird. (Again, this is a GABC engine issue.)

In general, lovely. Where did the large drop-cap illuminated letters come from? Is there a place to download or purchase that font?

"Magnifi-cat" all on the same note makes no sense. Hence, I add the missing ones so the word looks and reads evenly. As an example in this case: page 18 of the first PDF: Glo-ri-a patri et fi-li-o. Patri has no hyphenation while fi-li-o is completely hyphenated. It is arbitrary and looks weird. (Again, this is a GABC engine issue.)

No, it's traditional typesetting of Gregorian Chant - or else hyphenation in the Solesmes edtions is 'arbitrary' and 'weird' as well:

Btw. This exact hyphenation...
Glo-ri-a patri et fi-li-o. Patri has no hyphenation while fi-li-o is completely hyphenated.
... is already applied in the Vatican edtion (1908) of the Graduale Romanum, see attached file.

It is arbitrary and looks weird. (Again, this is a GABC engine issue.)

It's not random. Hyphens are only added when notes/neums would not otherwise align with the vowel in a syllable (allowing for minimum spacing between notes/neums). The "tr" in "Patri," and the "nct" in "Sancto." provide enough space for the notes to align over the "a" & "i" in "Patri," and the "a" and "o" in "Sancto." Ditto for the "nc" in "princi-pi-o," and the "mp" in "semper," ... It's a spacing issue and the algorithm is to eschew hyphens when notes align over the vowels in syllables without them.

Indeed, what Charles says. The notes are preferably spaced out as evenly as possible and the syllables are placed beneath them accordingly; sometimes a hyphen is needed to gap the white space between syllables (with the hyphen placed directly after the syllable and not in the middle between two syllables). So, generally, the spacing of notes takes precedence over that of syllables. This was, of course, only conceived when the new way of printing Gregorian Chant was developed at the end of the nineteenth century.

Hyphens as needed to align with notes is an almost immemorial convention of music, rather than a 19c novelty. Even in Petrucci's prints one sees "Kyrie eley-son ky-rie e - ley- son." To go earlier, have a peek at Modena B, where multiple hymn verses are carefully aligned syllable by syllable beneath the gregorian neums.

Is it still worthwhile to submit proofreading notes, @tomjaw, or too late?