Jeff Ostrowski, who is on assignment, has an aversion to the Triplex which I want to explore when he has time. I read what he wrote but did not comprehend.

Hi, Noel. My objections to the Triplex are basically two:

(1) It doesn't make any sense to me that the Triplex is set over the NOTES of the Vaticana, which is almost an exact copy of Pothier's Liber Gradualis (finished around 1870 and published 15 years later).

You can download all these old chant books, including the Mocquereau 1903 Liber Usualis and Pothier Liber Gradualis at this site

(2) I have read the explanations for the interpretation of some of the neumes ("graphica" as semiologists call them these days) from the old Einsiedeln and Laon MSS, and they strike me as speculative at best (this is my opinion as a music theorist who has also done graduate work in musicology). Obviously, others are free to have a different opinion. I have also had some of these explained to me in person by prominent Cardine students, and came to the same conclusion.

Jam. You are very insightful. Your posts are always refreshing and rejuvenating. What a blessing for Franciscan University to have such a wonderful chanter. Much blessings to your future studies and chanting.

CharlesW,

I would definitely prefer modern notation for singing anything besides chant. Polyphony is very important to count right so that your part and the other parts blend in properly, and the altos aren't two measures behind the sopranos while the basses already finished the song. Modern notation is also indispensable for any kind of instrumental accompaniment. I'm a classically trained woodwind player, and I'm pretty much crippled without sheet music. If you're playing in an ensemble and want to play something even kind of complicated, sheet music is necessary.

So, I am not saying that neumes are "better" than modern music notation overall--I'm saying it's better for chant. The best chant I ever hear is always sung using that notation. In fact, and you'll know what I'm talking about, even the best Byzantine chant I've ever heard was sung straight from real Byzantine notation (and we all kind of just stared at the guy sightreading the stuff; he was brilliant).

I wouldn't say that polyphony and Haydn et al. replaced chant at all. I would say they merely augmented chant in the liturgy. Nothing wrong with that.

The point of this thread, I think, is to say that it's well worth it to learn how to read neumes if you sing chant. That's all.

In many places, chant did fall into disuse until Solemnes brought it back to the forefront - that and St. Pius X. For some reason, it has seemed to me that there is a tendency toward excess that is built into music. Chant did reach a point where much of it became too complicated for congregations to sing. And polyphony became so elaborate and contrived that even the church had to decree it be simplified. It reached the point where no one could understand the text.

Chant has been accompanied for so many centuries now, that it's hardly an innovation. Of course, the purists would disagree. But I think the purists need to ride along behind the back-end of horses and have an authentic ancient transportation experience. It might be good for them. ;-)

Neumes don't go back to the time of Christ. IIRC, the earliest examples we have are medieval. Now I have no problem with neumes for unaccompanied chant, and can actually read them when I choose. Chant is not always the best choice for every occasion. So much depends on time, place and circumstances.

Gavin, I didn't know you had worked with some of our local singers. I don't know how they are doing it, but they are somehow getting back and forth between us. ;-)

CharlesW, I wish I can invite you to the Colloquium, where you can truly experience the power and the beauty of singing chants from neums (and learn) and singing the beautiful polyphonies that are tastfully selected. Have you ever been in the Colloquium? I think it's important for church musicians, especially music directors to be recharged. I hope I can meet you in 'Musical Heaven' next year.
(also having chants in different occasions have nothing to do with singing chants from neums. )

Back to the thread at hand:
1. Having attended my second colloquium, my first intensive and having the pleasure of my wife (a fine singer and absolute novice to square notes) dive head first from 50 metres into neumes, I can say:
a. I'm absolutely convinced that systematic exposure to reading gregorian neumes, using solfege and the gentle exposure to the rhythmic fineries of chant will not only inform and improve my choristers sight-reading abilities in standard notation, but provide them with aesthetic tools by which their renderings of polyphony and other choral forms will steadily improve.
b. I'm absolutely convinced that, in my case, this progress will be extremely measured. They will not be afforded the absolute luxury of total immersion my wife was, and that will be all's benefit, as my wife will gently affirm any of the semi-reluctant souls in our choir that our venture into 4 line, square pants (notes, I mean) is not some sort of harbinger of massive change. Pun intended. We will employ the Ballou Method (a sort of Ward Method for Baby Boomers.)
c. CW- I can assure you that your vocal abilities, such as you think they are, are of a calibre greater than some I've encountered over these three years at events. But I, and I presume all of us, can empathize (we're so Obama/Sotomayor) with a disposition that says the experience would be opposite of what its adverts and testimonials prove it to be, ie. "Heaven" not "hell on earth." Yes, one of the perks of colloquium for directors is that you do sing at rehearsals, seemingly incessantly, for a week. That's a perk because most of us want NOT TO BE IN CHARGE for just a little while. You don't get that at MENC, ACDA, Choristers Guild, etc. You listen to other choirs and people talking about singing or directing. At colloquium, you sing. But not for singing's joy itself, but for a tangible, yet metaphysical prize that is within the context of actual ritualization of your efforts. No where else can that be found. You are, at your console, the head honcho with your charges. At CMAA, you are anonymous, one voice comprised of many, just as your instrument functions at your fingertips and pedals.
d. If colloquiums were to de-evolve into what you describe in the last paragraph, well, you'd have another AGO or High-Falutin' NPM (they wish!)
e. Colloquiums do venture into other genres, witness the Elgar "Ave verum," the Brahms "Let thy soul not grieve," the Liszt "Ave maris...," some quasi-Orthodox monody/homophony, as well as compositions unveiled at the reading sessions which provide the soul and ear with plenty of variety. The organ pre/post-ludes and recitals are both exquisite and overwhelming at once, even to the point of prompting discussions of their own theological purpose. But to ask the CMAA to go the route of being "all things to all people" by expanding its priorities beyond the edification of chant first, and polyphony second, would be to invite its dilution and betrayal of purpose, and eventually its demise.
f. I am, the older I get, the less certain of what things are of "worth and interest" to the believing soul. I can tell you that my wife, still in ardor of last month's exposure, wants to experience colloquium annually with her husband. I'm okay with that. We'll make plans, God will then laugh or smile.

CharlesW,
We do the Elgar occasionally. I love Elgar, but I have to say his setting of the Ave Verum just doesn't turn me on as much as the Byrd or even Mozart. I'm thinking there is a nice setting for two-pt women's voices by somebody French- Franck maybe? It'll come to me.

Donna

This year's music program included works of Vaughan Williams, Faure (the Messe Basse), Brahms, Haydn (the Kleine Orgelmesse), and Liszt; I think it's a fair presence of styles outside polyphony and plainchant. Enjoy the recordings.

CharlesW,
I went for the first time (paid my own way) and enjoyed it very much- it is NOT constant singing of chant. of course, I started out in life as a singer not a director, so I really enjoy not having to make any decisions except which note I'm going to sing! LOL And the Haydn was pure pleasure! H Bucholz was a wonderful director. I've sung under some talented, charismatic directors in my life, inc recording the Beethoven 'Missa Solemnis' under Bernstein, and Maestro B ranks right up there.
And the food was outstanding!! Plus the setting is so beautiful. Now if we could just arrange for our very own sailboat.
Donna
PS. The thing I don't like about the Elgar is the last three or four meas. :)

Pes--

funny (to me) that you say modern notation "over-specifies things." In the case of chant, I am always trying to persuade people that modern notation simply cannot convey the nuances that neums can. In other words, modern notation lacks the subtleties of chant notation.

I have sometimes come across the assertion that Eskimos have 12 different words for snow. Eskimos are snow experts, so that makes sense. Square notes are an Eskimo-style language for chant--a rich, sophisticated way to communicate how it is to be sung. Modern notation lacks the basic terminology. Thus it can communicate only a very crude, truncated comprehension of chant.

I'd say trying to sing chant with modern notation is a matter of receiving not nearly enough information rather than too much.

I'm guessing that this is a semantic issue and that we probably agree on the superiority of square notation when it comes to telling singers how to render chant.

I'd say that modern notation just does not "over-specify" but is too generalized...much like a screw-driver kit with magnetized multiple bits and attachments for various styles of screw heads and bolts...metric and inches....with a torque adjustment.

Very helpful unless you just want to pry open a can of paint.

Chant notation is a pry bar for melodic singing, a pry bar that also does not restrict the flow of the words with artificial time barriers.

And since the timelessness of chant is due to the lack of familiar cadences, why have time barriers?

The whole modern system is what I'm referring to -- it's very elaborate!

And Steve is right: it can be tweaked and scaled back to represent chant better -- but in that case, why not just learn the chant notation in the first place?

I'd like to come back to the point that learning square notation gives you direct access to a huge range of source material. I was in the sacristy of Santa Croce in Florence a month or so ago, saw a very nice antiphonary on display, and just sight-read the thing right there, no problem. My relatives were looking at me like I suddenly developed fluency in Chinese, but as I explained the system, they nodded and said, okay, that makes sense.

Because it does!

I think the way chant is rendered is more dependent on the singer than on the neumes. Chant allows for a wide, wide, range of individual interpretation. Perhaps that's both its curse and blessing. One has to remember this is primitive music from an essentially, primitive time. It was passed on by aural tradition for centuries before anyone was able to notate it. None of the above indicates anything that is "wrong" with chant. It's just music from an earlier time, place, and culture. We really don't know how it was "done" in the early centuries. For all we know, the Irish could have been dancing and singing "Riverchant." You have to watch those Irish. They are too creative for their own good. ;-) I have often wondered if anyone had the ancient equivalent of T-shirts with "Dufay Rocks" or "Aurelius Clemens Prudentius Rules" on them. ;-) Who knows?

Gavin, I use modern notation to accompany chant - actually, not always, but most of the time. However, a singer who knows chant notation can sing well with neumes and doesn't need accompaniment. Whether or not the two systems are equal, is anyone's guess. Capable singers could probably sing well with either chant or modern notation because of the artistry and interpretation they would bring to it. I find much of what is "known" about chant to be speculation. No one knows how this music was actually performed.

Mia, much of what you write as fact, is much more subjective than that. It's really your opinion. I suspect that most of us, as a practical matter, end up working with what we have available. We may not have the best editions available and often can't trace the history or worth of the editions we are using. Sometimes I have neumes to work with, sometimes stemless notes. Often, what I have is from a hymnal, and its authenticity is really anyone's guess. Again, I work with what I have.

I am not at all convinced that the Church consecrated or annointed Solemnes. Modern chant scholars can, and often do, disagree with Solemnes.

Sad to say, as I have pointed out before, most Catholic musicians in the United States solve the issue of chant by simply never using it. To change that, something is going to have to be published that's very "user friendly" for the average Catholic (spell that NPM) musician.

Mia, I probably can read chant notation equally as well as you. Sometimes I use it, sometimes I don't. There are no edicts from heaven or Rome that I have to use one or the other.

Mia, I also suspect that much of what we hear is more dependent on the skill and talent of the singer, not the notation. Chant in the wrong hands can sound just as bad as anything in modern notation.

I took nothing personally from anything you said, Mia. And perhaps we can meet one of these days if I ever get to the annual Chicago gathering.

I am in an area that is 3 to 4 percent Catholic, at most. Three of the Catholic churches in the region have musicians who are restoring and promoting music that is sacred and reverent. We all three post here, by the way.

My biggest concern is the other Catholic churches in the area. One of them has been collecting money to buy a new drum - does that tell you anything? Somehow, we have to get what we are attempting to do out of the colloquiums and conventions and into the other churches using forms and materials they will not automatically reject. Is that even possible? I don't know. But right now, local Catholics are divided into two different camps and don't even speak the same language, or so it seems.

As the originator of the Ballou method (thanks Charles in CenCA), I read all forty of these posts in a single pass as punishment for failing to check the Forum every 30 minutes.

I like neumes, but I only liked them when I realized I could sing them without knowing the names of the compound ones. And I don't make anyone who sings with me learn more than the basics either. I like neumes because people don't bring too many of their preconceived notations of church music along.

At the same time, I can work with stemless notation on a five-line staff. And I've used it with groups that just "freaked" at the more traditional notation. Heck, if I could master the Guidonian hand, I'd use that too.

I do what works with the singers I have in front of me at that moment.

The chant is not the notation. The chant is the text and the sounds. Notation came later when chants became sufficiently complex, the repertoire had advanced beyond memory, and there was a desire to create a higher lever of uniformity in the western Church. (OK, that's a mangling of ecclesiastical music history.)

I love Gregorian chant. I also love Znamenny, Byzantine (without the Hammond organ), Melanisian, and just about any form of sacred monophony that crosses my path. But I also love American shape-note, Anglican chant, the work of Andre Gouze, and more besides.

"CommentAuthormjballou CommentTime5 minutes ago
That's "preconceived notions" - not "notations." Well, maybe ...."

Sounds like a Freudian slip to me! ;-: Where is this Ballou method available? Is it in print?

CW, current issue (Summer 09) of "Sacred Music." Basically, MJB's article is a simple, common sense compendium of her methodologies when teaching and directing whatever assemblage of singers she has before her; not a "method" per se.
Like every article of hers I've encountered, should be required reading for ever'one, novices and aesthetes alike. My wife was reading this particular article on the way home from church after colloquium one recent Sunday, and was virtually cheering at least once every paragraph.
Because I've observed MJB, AOZ, Drs.Jenny and Susan, MA, SingMum et al at close quarters, I'm secretly, and stealthily (?) going to groom Wendy to take over schola; not because she is also one of the gals- I'm no Scott Turkington, Yurodivi, chonak, MOC, Aristotle, Pedro from NYC or David Hughes!

Jam: Hear, hear! (j/k)

Actually, that reminds me that some months ago I happened upon a site whose authors proposed a notation system based on the St. Gallen neumes, but (1) the neumes were placed on a Guidonian staff, and (2) the width of the neume strokes was thickened to make them readable against the staff lines.

Unfortunately, I cannot seem to find the right search-engine-keyword combination to uncover the site.

And, if I remember correctly, the system is under copyright.

I was joking, of course, but I have seen a man read--during liturgy!--notation like this (Byzantine chant), and it was nothing short of awesome. I actually really want to learn how to read Byzantine notation myself.

As for chant notation, it was the organic outgrowth of the original notation, which was the organic outgrowth of the aural tradition. Modern music notation did not grow organically out of chant but rather grew organically out of polyphony and instrumental music. Ergo, I would say that trying to apply modern music notation to chant is more than just an anachronism. They just don't fit together, because they did not evolve together. It's do-able, yes, and there's nothing wrong with it, but all the singers I know who can read neumes prefer them--for chant.

Charles, thanks for the note on the Summer "Sacred Music." It's here, but still unread, since I am behind on my reading. I will look up that article.