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

Perhaps the most useful information about the Solesmes method is that its 'inventor' was a cellist. So if you think of the JSBach Cello Suite(s), you'll have a better idea of his thinking as he codified the system.

mjballou -- Thanks for the link! yes, the new notation is a 19th century development, kind of like the current Gregorian chant notation is actually really new also (created since Solesmes started to repair corrupted chants, right?). But it's very similar to the old kinds of notation, if you look at comparisons. It's not as much of a drastic difference as adding ledger lines and do/fa clefs. :P

It's funny, at my parish we have a chant system that the parish made up, which is kind of like that notation but super-simplified. There's just a mark for up a pitch, down a pitch, hold double length, and maybe two or three other marks that mean different frilly things. Unfortunately at my parish all the Byzantine chant we do sing is Westernized, which means taking out the microtones, basically. Every once in a while, though, the son of the man who I was talking about earlier will sing something very Byzantine for us.

Microtones are hard for me to conceptualize, too, but I'm still young, and I figure if I listen to Byzantine chant enough and learn under someone knowledgeable, I stand a chance.

. . .

My dear Charles,

While I am amazed at being listed in such august company, I can't imagine what you've learned from me that would be worthy to teach your bride. Perhaps maintaining good humor while making mistakes? :D Always happy to learn from you, though

And just to stay (minimally) on topic-- square notes rock!

OK... I haven't read the entire thread, but I have an opinion that I am sure you are all dying to hear.

For every time there is an art form. It progresses (or better yet, a more accurate description would be that it undergoes metamorphosis). The word 'progresses' is not a good word for the unfolding of any art form because that word implies that the later form has become more developed than the earlier or is in some way more advanced or more perfect. It's just not the case. For every moment in time there are an infinite range of possibilities for any art form. Some take hold and 'catch on'. Every artist contributes to the 'unfolding' just as much as the technique itself pushes each artist to pursue its refinement.

Chant holds a special place because many church artisans made it so. It was a natural growth that spanned centuries. The church (heirarchy) recognized its special place and REALIZED over time how perfectly the form was 'married' to the rites of religion, liturgy, and sung prayer. It truly is the supreme art form of the Roman Catholic Church. This does not detract from other art forms being part of our tradition (organ music, instrumental music, polyphony, etc.). However, the chant holds a very special place because it is the most natural expression of prayer married to music. This is also true in the development and refinement of square note notation. It is the perfect way to express chant in black and white. The interpretation of chant, however, will never be 'perfected'. For every singer of chant there will be a slightly different way to sing the prayer. Anyone who tries to say that there is one 'best' or 'pure' way to interpret chant is running the train off the tracks.

Can you read and sing (interpret) chant reading modern notation? Yes. But it's kind of like opening a beer bottle with a cork screw. Just use the church key dude! That's what the tool was made for!

Each period of art (or music) captures the spirit of that particular time, culture, way of thinking, etc. In my way of thinking, they are all valuable and there is much to learn and practice in each.

But Gregorian Chant (its notation and its interpretation) by its very nature, IS and will always be the natural language of the Roman Rite.

In this case I believe our job is helping the pigs don't stay as pigs.

Charles, my friend, re-read Sacrosanctum Concilium. The chant is normative and natural to the rite.

The drums, bad architecture, and general craziness are the aberration. The fact that they have displaced the chant testifies to disobedience and ignorance. It does not mean *they* are normative to the rite.

I wish you could have been at the OF Masses at the colloquium. *They* were OF Masses done right.

It is our job to try to fulfill the church's stated wishes as spelled out in Sacrosanctum and the other post-Vat II magisterial documents.

I agree. Even swine flu can be good, if we learn something from it.
Yesterday (Saturday morning Mass where our schola is allowed to sing), we had a priest who asked our schola not to sing Mass parts (once in awhile we have this priest when no one else is available.), so I humbly asked him (as best as I can ) we will sing only the commonio (in latin) and Salve Regina at the end. He said ok. His homily was about accepting the change while he was looking at us (I wasn't sure what kind of change he was talking about.) The most painful part for me was to see him how he handle the consecrated host. ( By the way the Mass he celebrates takes no more than 15 mintues.)
But after the Mass, I thanked him for the Mass and gave him a copy of CD on Sacred music by Dr. Marht from the Colloquium (thanks Carl D who made the Cd, I have lots of copies now). He asked me where the Colloquium was held and I said at the Loyola Uni. in Chicago. Some how his face was brightened saying "Jesuit college?" He took the CD and looked happy. (The talk on the Cd might not exactly be what he is expecting to hear. But who knows little by little...and I'm prayinmg for him). Sometimes I ask why I'm doing this here. ( I really don't feel I have much to offer.) But when I see the people who stay with the schola and sing Salve Regina, and gave me a hug, I know why.

The American rite will eventually be recognized for the abberations which it embodies. When the priest walks down into the congregation to "connect" during the homily all I can think of is the Dave Letterman talk show. It has NOTHING to do with the liturgy and is certainly alien to the Roman Rite. Same with the " musical performers" (Dave's sidekick, Paul Schafer and company). Totally ego centric and a model that is foreign to the RR.

I too am a realist. But I take them where they are (pigs? - no, just uncatechized brothers and sisters in Christ) and steer them toward the true meaning of the Mass and then continually promote excellence in it's music. They either run in the other direction or they begin to appreciate what true and excellent liturgy is all about.

I went to the Colloquium this year with no square-note background; I'm a music director in Chicago at a mid-sized neighborhood parish, and the only chant we ever sang was "Pange Lingua" on Holy Thursday (come to find out, at 1/3 of the slowest appropriate tempo... damn.)

Having come away from the Colloquium, I think that the round notes (and the published harmonizations) are one of the biggest barriers to chant being more widely used. I myself, despite a pretty comprehensive musical background (currently getting PhD in Composition) seriously just did not get how chant was supposed to go, and nothing in OCP, GIA, or WLP publications was even remotely helpful (astonishing, but a novice church music director does not know you have to go beyond the [NON]-"official" publishers). I kept trying to treat it like hymnody + rubato. the notes are too far from each other, the syllables too hard to read; the eyes have to move too fast...

The other barrier, in my mind, is obstinate music directors. We, often more than those around us, have a hard time leaving our comfort zone, which includes the keyboard and the round notes we so diligently mastered in grad school.

We have a lot of people in our mostly-volunteer choir who can't technically read music anyway, but who pick up on the intuitiveness of modern notation when singing hymns and songs. This year will be an experiment to see if they pick up on the intuitiveness of the little boxes. We're going to go VERY SLOWLY... but I'm really optimistic. I'm pretty convinced people just need to be led by an informed, patient, enthusiastic example.

CharlesW,

You state "reservations about Sacrosanctum Concilium" but in your next sentence do not
state reservations about the rite as currently implemented.
This is like an English teacher requesting repair of a poetry assignment,
a student deciding to rework it into an essay,
the teacher stamping the rework with "failed to follow directions"
and an observer calling into question the teacher's request.
Your argument should be the opposite--acceptance of SC, and reservations about
the quality of implementation of that document (and others that followed).

"like SC because it says what we want to hear ... part of the reason it is ignored by hierarchy and people alike?"

SC has enough paragraphs for everyone to like something.
The problem is that people only want to read carefully the parts they agree with,
skim-read or ignore the rest, and rely on a (perhaps faulty) memory of that one-time perusal;
or worse, person1 reads what person2 has to say about person2's favorite paragraph
of SC and relies on that, as if it were not only SC itself, but the complete text of SC.

Both the Vatican website and the USCCB website are on the internet.
People ignore checking up on things they think they already know ["IIRC, it was promulgated in 1963"],
even with Google and the data just a mouse click away.
This forum, and plenty of others like it, reflect this fact.

Quite simply, for no good reason, the documents are ignored, period.

Lex Orandi, you are so right about the problem of modern notation for chants. I think it's the musicians who 'fear' or worry than non-musicians singing chants from chant notaion. People who don't read notes don't really care. Hopefully they will hear chants by the schola available in the parish who learn to sing chants beautifully from chant nottion and associate that beautiful sound with chant notaions at least.
Congratulations on your embaking on the journey of discovering one of the most beautiful sacred music ever created.

"This Gregorian Chant is an art which is both divine and human - divine because of its supernatural inspiration and that sweet and lovely ordor of sanctity which breathes in all its melodis; and, at the same time, profoundly human by its musical structure and in the response it finds in simple, upright souls eager for the truth."
Dom J. Gajard, O.S.B-1951

"Gregorian Chant, because of its purity and its perfection, remains the artistic expression of the Catholic Church. I like to think of it as the eternal Youth of Art that serves to revitalize by its modality, the inspiration of all Christian composers."
Jean Langlais, 1982

"Take one of the more florid melodies, such as those sung at Easter time or on Whitsunday, which will doubtless be considered by every musician of some taste the most perfect, the most convincing one-line compositions ever conceived. In order to understand their overwhelming power, you cannot restrict yourself to just reading or hearing them. You must participate in singing these melodic miracles if you want to feel how they weld the singing group into a spiritual unit, independent of the individual prompting of a conductor, and guided only by the lofty spirit and the technical excellence of the structure." Paul Hindemith, 1961

(The qoutes above are from "Gregorian Chant Practicum," CUA, an excellent book for chanters who want to discover the beauty of singing chants.)

The site combining St Gall neumes and square notes seems to be this one: http://www.gregoriana.nl/ They call it Fluxus notation.

Perhaps the suppression of the Tridentine Mass was a blessing. It remained protected from liturgical change.