Here's a better translation of the same inverview.

Yes, I find that strange as well.

I have been familiar with the Solemnes method for five short years.
I am still observing the method and keeping an open mind to those who promote it. Our schola has not yet approached the rudiments it prescribes. The main reason is one alone. Too much mechanical thinking is introduced into the artfulness and prayerfulness of the chant. I will continue to watch and listen, but I am still not convinced of it's importance.

I would add an observation here. The main objection that I have held in the past five years is turning chant into a metered music. By it's very nature that it is not. So I don't understand the need to make it so. Can someone enlighten me to the contrary?

He also says this,

"Master, then where are we in the restoration of sacred music and liturgy?
Bishop B.: I am not denying that there are some signs of recovery ... but I still persist
see a kind of blindness, as some convenience for all that is vulgar, crude, tasteless, and
also what is doctrinally bold ... Do not ask me, I beg you, my opinion on "guitarades"
and the songs they sing to us again during the offertory.

The liturgical problem is serious: we must stop listening to the voices of those who don ' not like the Church and
oppose the Pope."

Charles, I understand the various situations. But the 'humility' for me is being able to take the big 'I' in me and follow the Church's teachings. Just because one is not perfect, doens't mean that he can't tell the truth. When I was doing music for my parish, no one told me what the Church teaches about the liturgy and sacred music, no priest, no other musicians. When I asked to music director about a certain music, his answer was 'every music is blessed.' So basically he was telling me whatever you want. I wish someone had told me what I was doing was not the right way, instead of just telling me that music was pretty. I also think there are musicians like the Bishop in the article who might be frustrated with what he has seen in his life. We help each other to learn the truth. Sometimes truth hurt. But truly humble heart will hear it.
I have seen many musicians who are not perfect, but try their best, more than their best, and being criticized, instead of just following what they like and defending themselves. I have a high repect for those truly humble musicians, no matter how much talent they have.
(The part what I like from what he says was actually the last part
"The liturgical problem is serious: we must stop listening to the voices of those who don ' not like the Church and
oppose the Pope.")

Michael, they are all native Latin speakers. :-)

Observe monks or sisters singing chant in a monastery. It just works.

Adam, you are absolutely correct! I, too will only "bite" once. I have been directing Chant scholas for the past 20 years, for the past 10 years it has been my full time job. I have choir and choristers numbering 50. All the Choristers as probationers spend two years studying the Chant, they neither count nor follow an ictus. My adult schola numbers 28 cantors. Most weeks two or three mass propers are prepared- all propers taken from the Graduale. Again, there has never been any "counting" or following of the "tyrannical" ictus as Dr Mary Berry used to call it. This is not to say that one must discard the WHOLE of the "Method", indeed, there are somethings I believe it gets right- the "lifted" accent for example. Remember that in the past, the Vatican "editio typica" of the chant books would not allow the Solesmes rhythmic markings, not an ictus, not a dot, nor even a horizontal episema. How does my schola stay together? A thorough study of the subtle rhythmic shadings of St Gall and Laon as I treat my schola as a real school- each practice is a study and a perfecting, and indeed looking at the TEXT of which the Chant is the servant. I now have gotten to the point where I rarely even direct- 25 people singing the melismatic chants of the Gradual and Alleluias without anyone directing. Mental telepathy? No, just good choir training.

Well, this has been one of the most exciting (?) topic for long discussions for many chant lovers in this forum. (I don't know the exact titles of the threads, so I cannot help for 'search.' But I remember some discussions were very informative.)

I want to thank those who put lots of effort to make Semiology available to other chanters, and I have no doubt that their work will bear fruits in chant history. But I also hope you remember that there have been church musicians who humbly devoted their life to keep the Church's music alive with the method they knew. I can't even imagine the depth of their sacrifices for keeping this Church's beautiful music while so much litrugical abuse was going on after Vatican II. There are also still many who inherited this method and attribute to restoring sacred music

We know very well that Dr. Marier was a musician with great talent and education. But most of all, he is a model of the most humble church musicians I've ever known. In his classes he didn't spend time on how much he did and accomplished, or what he liked or not liked. Only thing he mentioned was that there are proper music for proper places. I still vividly remember his face was always glowing with his love of Gregorian chant. His love for chant wasn't about "me"(himself), it was about the Church and the people. I was suprised pleaseantly when read about him and his accomplishment after twenty some years. In addition to many awards and honors, he was recognized by Pope J Paul II in 1984 as Knight Commander of St. Gregory the Great for his unparrelled dedication to promoting and understanding and love for chant throughout the world. (from "A Gregorian Chant Master class)". !984! then I was stuying with him after he recieved this title. Didn't have a clue. He helped me even by bringing teaching materials to where I taught Ward method. He also played organ for my small children's choir. Didn't have a clue he was such a legendary master until recently.
He taught classic Solesmes method. He was a highly musical person and humble. When people talk about the method, please don't describe it as just '1-2 and 1-2-3' or use word tyranny of ictus and so on. I think those are very ignorant expressions. Without classic Solesmes and such humble musicians, chant might not have survived. (Although everything is in God's hand, they are the ones who humbly said 'yes' to his calling.)

At this point Semiology is like having icing on the top of birthday cake to me. (I'm sure Semiologists will not agree with it, and probably say they are different cakes.) Frankly speaking trying to sing those squiggly signs are almost like trying to play Beethoven's Sonata from his own manuscript. So I have to study more, but would love to see it in a better organized method that many people can adapt to their chant singing. I know many people are working on it. (I'm sure Dr. Marier in heaven is happy to see another interpretaion of chant is emerging and looking forward to hear more.)

Thank you and God Bless.
(Sorry for another long post)

(Noel, I'd like to know what the 'original' says. Is it the same as the translation above? If not, and you are able, can you send it to me by "whisper' if you think that might be better. Thanks)

Thanks, Noel. I hope 'Kimchi' helps your understanding of my poor English :-)

I will add a comment (or 3) as well: In these discussions I believe it is helpful to distinguish two aspects of the Solemses method: on the one hand, there are the rhythmic editions of Solesmes and the underlying scholarship that justifies them. On the other hand are the specific choral training and conducting techniques which reached a pinnacle in the 1950s and which presuppose rhythmic editions, but don't necessarily require one to accept the choices made by Solesmes. It is unsurprising that semiology can be understood as a critique of the Solesmes method understood in the first aspect. After all, the Solesmes rhythmic editons are intended to translate into accessible notation of the same manuscripts to which we apply our semiological tools. Any new (valid) insights should necessarily displace the old.

But in regard to the Solesmes method understood in the second aspect - as a method for training and conducting choirs - it is unclear to me that semiology has any relevance. Isn't the interesting question whether the neo-Solesmes method is in fact effective for training and conducting choirs? There may be all sorts of other approaches that people may use effectively as time and circumstances allow, but how would they invalidate the ictus-and-counting approach if it can be shown to work?

Hmmm

MO

I suspect you are saying our schola is not singing together because it is not possible without the use of chironomy or semiology.

Actually, I have developed my own method of conducting and directing our rhythms and rubato which is also based upon directing from a large single manuscript utilizing a pointing instrument (my finger!) along with my own style of directing sung prayer. I choose to "shield" the schola from the burdens laden in the mechanics of ictus, Arsis and Thesis and other elements of rhythm, pulse and pitch and communicate that intuitively, illicting almost the same results. Our schola sings fluidly with the approach of one voice in perfect blend.

Because of this intensive close and personal formation during rehearsal, I am able to eliminate direction (or minimize it) during execution of liturgical prayer. There is nothing more distracting than a director especially during liturgical prayer, both to schola member and PIPs.

It is an entirely different philosophical approach to that of "bearing the soul" that is so common in our society today. It is not all that different to raising children. You give them only what they need to know as they develop. If you insist on teaching them all of the mechanics right from the start you may gross them out! Let them become curious about the mysteries!

Although unconventional, it is quite effective and very musical. Just because it is "prayer" does not mean it is not executed artistically and/or musically. We spend 6-10 hours a month practicing, (and this is a dedicated schola cantorum apart from the SATB choir) and studying the rubrics of chant using various teaching aids, the PBC, the Liber, listening to recordings including JO's great site for the Kyriale and more. So I would caution you not to be so quick to critique what you have not even heard or observed.

After I have been doing this for twenty years, I may consider offering a workshop or two on my methods. Keep me in mind !

Just to clarify, there are moments when the monks from Santo Domingo de Silos aren't exactly together. It's not chaotic, which isn't what I meant at all. I was thinking more like 98%.