Sanctus VIII : Koerber Hybrid Chant Notation : NOH Accompaniment Version
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    OK... final test version. If any of you would like to try this, let me know the results using it for organist and schola.

    As Carl alluded in another thread, there can be instances where the compound neume doesn't allow the change of accompaniment in a clear fashion. There is one neume (a podatus) which gets two chords applied to it in this piece. Other than that, it should be pretty straightforward.
    Thanked by 2Ben Felicity
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    Interesting notion Francis. I missed the other discussion, so maybe this observation is old: but it seems that you need somehow to allow for unison between the two notations .,.. the line up/down adds a non-standard third layer of notation. Wouldn't it be possible to combine notes and notation for unision, a whole note circling a chant neume or something?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    mrcopper

    hmmm... i am not understanding what you are saying. is there another way to communicate your point, perhaps with a simple drawing or something?
  • mrcoppermrcopper
    Posts: 653
    The red voice, staff 1 bar 2. There is a C then a line that could be mistaken for a ledger line but tilts up toward the next neume.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    o yea, i know what you mean now. i am just copying the NOH and that is the way they 'switched voices'. i guess the arranger just wanted you to know not to hold the alto note throughout the voice passage. it's a crude system, i will admit, but i guess i could change the notes to red at that point, but...
    nohSanctus.pdf
    64K
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    I guess I should mention that another reason for this type of notation is so that people (musicians) who do not understand or are intimidated by GC, well, this allows them to get used to reading chant notation without being freaked about being on four lines and not knowing in what key to perform the piece. It's a transitional way to bring the newbies over to getting used to chant notation.
    Thanked by 1chonak
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    hmmm... coming back to this after a few days, I see an error in note size... some small middle C's in the accompaniment line. No one else noticed I surmise. Am working on the permanent illuminated drop cap. hopefully will finish soon.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    I started this concept almost 10 years ago, and since I am getting ready to produce a choir edition of my hymnal (Fleur de lys) which contains selections from the Kyriale, I want to be able to employ the innovation of hybrid notation for the organist. Here is another rendition of the concept (Exhibit B).

    The first version (2014) utilized two five line staves. This version (Exhibit B) actually employs the Gregorian staff and a bass clef staff for the organ accompaniment.

    Let me know your thoughts.

    CORRECTION

    I forgot... I did NOT inlcude the engraving from the 1961 RG... this is actually GABC exported through the S&S editor to make it fit nicely on 8.5 x 11 landscape.

    ADDITION

    I thought I would let you compare the two engravings of chant... you will now find a comparison of the 1961 Graduale to the GABC output in the second attachment.
    hybridExhibitB.pdf
    284K
    chantComparison.pdf
    190K
    Thanked by 2OMagnumMysterium CHGiffen
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    One more version.. for 'Four Limbs' (I have never tried this)
    hybridExhibitForFourLimbs.pdf
    51K
  • Charles_Weaver
    Posts: 74
    Switching over from the rhythm thread. I really love this idea; great work; I imagine getting the alignment must have been rather laborious.

    I think I like exhibit B best. The three staves makes a clean score, but I think compact is better for general use.

    I have two questions, one having to do with melody and one having to do with cognition and the two notations. In this excerpt, there are only a couple of instances where a change of harmony falls on an off-ictic note, according to the Solesmes version up top: "DO-mi-nus" and "PLE-ni." Since these are accented syllables, I think they both work well, although probably a stricter Mocquereau disciple would prefer a "gathering tone" approach before "pleni." Have you run across instances where the accompaniment and the rhythm of the Solesmes version don't work well together? I rather like the NOH harmonies, even if they are a bit different ) from what I would come up with on my own.

    Secondly, in this example, the F of the chant is the F of the accompaniment. I think a lot of us are used to accompanying in a bunch of different keys. For this same Mass setting, for instance, I usually play the Kyrie in C at the 8 am Mass and in D at the 12 pm Mass. Do you find it difficult to read the two notations when the pitches don't match? I actually imagine it's not that hard, since we chant directors all have a little piece of our brain that can read the four-line staff at a bunch of different pitch levels on the keyboard, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like that in writing.



    Thanked by 1francis
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,872
    I like option A the best because it’s easier to read the pitches of the melody. My congregations have always needed the melody played along, whereas option B makes doing so much harder, and is only helpful if you are only providing support but no melody. While I like the concept of option C, it’s too spread out and too much information to read three staves and two notations at the same time, even if it makes which notes the pedal takes easier to parse out; the rest requires still more processing overhead.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • GerardH
    Posts: 456
    Another vote here for option A, although I'm not a fan of that much colour in a score. I only have access to a black and white printer. In Exhibit B, I find it harder to follow the polyphonic movement of the voices; take the first bar for example. It's not immediately obvious that one should hold the alto and bass notes through the change in the tenor.

    @francis, I notice in that option you're using liquescent puncta inclinatus as dots - is there a particular reason?

    These remind me of the accompaniments to plainchant hymns found in the New English Hymnal 1986. I can't post any here because of copyright, but they are similar in layout (but not in accompaniment style) to those in The English Hymnal 1906. See an example from there attached. The plainchant is duplicated in the accompaniment score, but it allows choir and organist to allow the squarenotes to dictate the rhythm.
    Come, thou Redeemer - TEH 1906.pdf
    41K
    Thanked by 1francis
  • StPatricksSongs
    Posts: 4
    This is a great project!

    I was wondering, have you considered placing the text beneath the chant notation?

    I feel as though this would help the accompaniment stay with the lyric, without the need for so many tracking lines. And it would also reduce the vertical height, and be more familiar to someone chanting (as text is normally beneath the notation.)

    The alignment of the text would sometimes need to adjust, but that small inconsistency I think would be quite worth it for the benefits.
    Exhibit C.png
    1053 x 203 - 33K
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    Your comments are invaluable input to this project. I am mulling over what each of you have posted and will present some ideas with further explanation. Thank you again.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • OMagnumMysterium
    Posts: 249
    For my two cents, I preferred the one which was square notes for the entire thing, with the accompaniment notes color-coded by finger. I think that was in the hymnal thread.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    @Charles_Weaver

    Switching over from the rhythm thread. I really love this idea; great work; I imagine getting the alignment must have been rather laborious.


    Having been a graphic artist and typesetter/engraver since 1990 this is a bit time consuming but truly easy with professional illustration and layout apps.

    I think I like exhibit B best. The three staves makes a clean score, but I think compact is better for general use.


    Agreed.

    I have two questions, one having to do with melody and one having to do with cognition and the two notations. In this excerpt, there are only a couple of instances where a change of harmony falls on an off-ictic note, according to the Solesmes version up top: "DO-mi-nus" and "PLE-ni." Since these are accented syllables, I think they both work well, although probably a stricter Mocquereau disciple would prefer a "gathering tone" approach before "pleni." Have you run across instances where the accompaniment and the rhythm of the Solesmes version don't work well together? I rather like the NOH harmonies, even if they are a bit different ) from what I would come up with on my own.


    I have only engraved this single movement in the this style, so I would not know at this point in time.

    Secondly, in this example, the F of the chant is the F of the accompaniment. I think a lot of us are used to accompanying in a bunch of different keys. For this same Mass setting, for instance, I usually play the Kyrie in C at the 8 am Mass and in D at the 12 pm Mass. Do you find it difficult to read the two notations when the pitches don't match? I actually imagine it's not that hard, since we chant directors all have a little piece of our brain that can read the four-line staff at a bunch of different pitch levels on the keyboard, but I don't think I've ever seen anything like that in writing.


    I personally can easily transpose to any key while reading chant notation to improvise my own accomps, but to transpose the NOH on sight would be trying. I rather think the NOH far exceeds any other chant accomp than any I have ever seen. It's true modal harmonization and proper voice leading is truly impeccable.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    @ServiamScores

    Yes, I agree with your takes. However, as of late I have been avoiding playing the melody on the organ so as to leave the chant line 'untouched' and as not to confuse or sway their unified sense of rhythm by my own imperfections or difference in rubato.

    I see what you are saying about the alto line and cantus in one staff for ease of reading however.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    @GerardH

    Another vote here for option A, although I'm not a fan of that much colour in a score. I only have access to a black and white printer. In Exhibit B, I find it harder to follow the polyphonic movement of the voices; take the first bar for example. It's not immediately obvious that one should hold the alto and bass notes through the change in the tenor.


    Color would not be necessary. Yes, I was experimenting with color to replace tied notes, but I understand what you are saying.

    The tied alto and tied bass note force one to realize that the tenor does indeed change. (see NOH accompaniment below Exhibit B for reference)

    @francis, I notice in that option you're using liquescent puncta inclinatus as dots - is there a particular reason?
    To which example are you referring and what is the text of those notes?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    @StPatricksSongs

    I was wondering, have you considered placing the text beneath the chant notation?

    I feel as though this would help the accompaniment stay with the lyric, without the need for so many tracking lines. And it would also reduce the vertical height, and be more familiar to someone chanting (as text is normally beneath the notation.)

    The alignment of the text would sometimes need to adjust, but that small inconsistency I think would be quite worth it for the benefits.


    I suppose if the organist were also singing, that would be helpful, but this version is for an organist that is only playing and possibly directing. I do see your point, however. So many options to consider.

    Attached is your version of Exhibit C.
    Screen Shot 2024-02-19 at 8.35.15 PM.png
    1981 x 764 - 146K
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,872
    Francis, re: playi no the melody— I think that NOT playing the melody is a great goal, but it certainly takes a good long while and the right circumstances before you can leave it out. I’m teaching my parish missa XVII right now, and there’s no way in heaven that I could possibly not lead with the melody on a stronger stop. Perhaps in 3 years after it’s come back around for the 6th time, but until then… well, you get my point. It’s just not that realistic in practice. …at least not without a strong schola leading and the congregation VERY familiar with the chant.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • francis
    Posts: 10,799
    Yes I had a congregation that did the same. The church was half a block long and I had to play the melody also. Presently our schola is 8 very strong men and when the women join in alternatim we have 20 and the congregation does not sing at all.

    Hmmm… which one to publish?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,263
    For the Kyrie and anything done in alternatim (Gloria, Credo, Sequence), I have become a fan of the Liber Cantualis Comitante Organo and/or what Fontgombault has to fill the gaps; I find that you can really tone down the melody and registration for cantors but it doesn’t feel overdone if the choir sings with (or without) the people and the organist plays the melody too.

    This is why, as an aside, a point long made by Dr Mahrt has stuck: a threefold Kyrie is easier for congregations to sing, I think even with leading on “Christe”, and I really prefer alternatim men-women/women-men or schola-all for the chants where this is possible.
Add a Comment