The first time I ever heard Gregorian Chant sung according to semiological principles, I instantly felt that I was hearing something more visceral and more genuine than the kind of chant I had heard before. At that time, I knew nothing of the Solesmes method or of semiology - it was just an emotional reaction to the music. Having since studied semiology under Father Stephen Concordia of St. Vincent Archabbey, I have become intellectually convinced that semiology brings us much closer to the Gregorian as it was sung in the early centuries. Thank you for your clear exposition of the different schools of interpretation!
Wow, what a small world. I was just conversing with Msgr Alberto Turco and today he told me about Fr Stephen Concordia and sent me his email... then you write and mention having studied with him. Haha what a small world.
Your emotions told you it's more "genuine". Exactly the modernist way of approching anything. Semiology and paleography was the purpose of Dom Mocquereau and all the catholic (traditional) musicologist before Vatican II. Gregorian chant is an oral tradition, for which the schola don't need St Gall, except for directors and specific situations. Since you, and your school of thought, intellectualized semiology, ignoring music, natural rhythm, and good sense you produce a chant you like, you listen to yourself, for sure, but we can't keep listening to that, we can't sing together, and moreover we can't pray.
I prefer what enables the words’ rhythm to express the meaning: switching to that insight, years ago, was eye opening for me. I prefer the more “radical” semiological interpretation, although I think we need to be quite free to choose what works musically and pastorally. Today, I sing regularly in a schola of two, so we can be quite fluent in our celeriters and ornaments, and much is done solo: in a large schola this is more difficult, and a steadier tactus seems appropriate.
A steadier tactus seems appropriate for a schola, and for... praying. Solesmes traditional method is the method based on tradition and science, and on praying. Did you ever listen to Dom Gajard recordings ?
Thank you for all your amazing work and for sharing your knowledge Monsieur Jasper. I like both methods. I think for a big choir the solesmes method is more edifying. With a smaller group or even 1 or 2 the semiological method is preferable. It's beautiful to hear the nuances that a good singer can bring out of the chants and bring their own personal devotion out through the semiological, but the Solesmes method has a certain grandeur and dignity that brings it closer to the idea of the angelic choirs. The semiological makes me think of David fleeing Saul, the Solesmes the Courts of Heaven. Please do keep uploading works that help us to sing better. I thank God for teachers such as yourself.
How many method will you have ? For each size of choir ??? Today, there is ONE method to sing gregorian chant and PRAY, it's the traditional Solesmes Method, which is also based on natural rythm and moreover on medieval approach that a word alone is nothing, All in gregorian chant is linked, until the legato of the thinging. So this Solesmes method, before the revolution, make us sing in one way, together, and can be precised, refined thanks to St Gall notation AND TRADITION, not Dom Cardine's speculation ! That is catholic.
This introït is a praise of the saint. I prefer the subtle semiological method, not because it is more "praying", but because there is a feeling of the joy of the saint entering heaven. |I have to say that the presentation of the Dom Mocquereau method is honest and accurate (both the theory and the example), and this is not common among people departing from it.
There is remarkable recent scholarship on Guido's pedogogy, the hexachordal solfeggio which informed what we call "classical music" as well as earlier styles and chanting until "reforms" in the 19th century erased the long tradition. "The Solfeggio Tradition" 2020 Nicholas Baragwanath. You can find 2 long interviews with him on TH-cam. He has highly detailed pedagogy from primary sources. I hope the church will become aware of this and other scholarship now available to honor the many generations of incredible Catholic voices, and their progeny.
My dad and I have been the sole cantors (singing together) for my local Latin Mass since late 2020 (though I was part of the schola before then). We've sort of developed our own version of reading the chant very similar to the "radical Semiology" method, which is also easier to sing, imo, for a solo singer needing to preserve breath. Plus, I personally think that making the words and phrases as clear as possible is very important, so I like how the semiology method allows for the music to ornament the words rather than for the words to be superfluous to the music.
Once again, this is ideology, far from reality. The liturgy, the gregorian chant don't need "your version", don't need the "SUPER VERSION WHICH I FOUND IN MYSELF" like all the pitiful modernist find everything, in themselve ! thank you ! that's not the purpose. Did you even listen to Dom Gajard recordings ??? Did you try to pray while singing or listening ? A solo singer will sing a better version of the pieces, but not an OTHER version. It will be more expressive, more delicate but not DIFFERENT. Music is serving the word of god, but it's still music. What is "radical", in fact partial (radical / roots / tradition) is your approach which see the words without the sentences, and the whole piece. A word alone is nothing. With Dom Cardine and the "New Solesmes method", you sing a juxtaposition of word which mean nothing.
Thank you for this! I used to sing in the Scola Cantorum at a Catholic university...we had very little weekly rehearsal time, and though we used the Graduale Triplex, the Vatican-trained Nun who led the group never really explained those red Squiggles. It was very frustrating. I still have my Graduale Triplex. Will have to pull it out of Storage.
Will have to listen to longer pieces - I’m not a musician. Up to now, I thought Solesmes method was the only one - although I’m from the Uk, have actually been to Solesmes to hear it sung. The most moving chant i have heard is that of the sisters of St Cecilia’s Abbey on the Isle of Wight (uk).
I just listened to a talk given by Jeff Ostrowski at CC Watershed, and he basically is advocating for the use of the Editio Vaticana using the official rhythm. He says that the rhythmic signs added by Dom Mocquereau add elongations where they shouldn't be and otherwise alter the rhythm often disrupting the flow of the melody. He critiques also Semiology, saying that the notation is based only on a couple manuscripts that often contradict each other let alone the other thousands (regarding the rhythm). He believes these marking were from individual notes made by monks for their own use and were not meant to be universalized. What do you make of such arguments? It seems to me gregorian chant has enough built in freedom to sing how one wishes, but there are definite differences between the official Vatican approved edition and what is often taught and used throughout the world. Let me know what you think. Thanks for all the content!
Hello and thank you for your question. Yes, I am familiar with Mr Ostrowski and have also listened to the talk you mention. He has been advocating the Editio Vaticana rhythm for several years now. While I respect Mr Ostrowski and his views, I also respectfully disagree with him in general. While he does make some good points in that talk, in general I disagree with most of his views. While he is correct that the Editio Vaticana is the "official" rhythm, that does not necessarily equate to the original rhythm of those who composed the chants in the 8th-9th centuries, nor the best rhythmical approach. It's just the rhythm which has received the Vatican's official stamp of approval. On the other hand, I do sympathize with Dom Pothier's view as expressed in the preface to the Editio Vaticana (which he quoted) and Mr O's final statement that: one simply needs to look at the available evidence and arguments and make up one's own mind. Have you listened to Mr Charles Weaver's presentation (th-cam.com/video/zuRyE0iYLNM/w-d-xo.html) defending the Solesmes Method? I believe his was presented as the lecture following Mr O's. I think he also makes some very good observations, though it seemed to me that he kind of presented Mocquereau's theory as being based of off 19th century theorists such as Momigny, stating that this is the source for the ictus. While he Mocquereau was certainly influed by Momigny and others, I don't think it is entirely true to say that that is the source for the ictus because Mocquereau clearly explains and demonstrates this as being part of the very nature and essence of rhythm. While I do generally agree with the principles of the Solesmes Method (of Moquereau), I do think the application of it is sometimes incorrect: i.e. in the light of the manuscripts, the ictus and rhythmical markings sometimes being placed on the wrong notes. As for semiology, Dom Pothier (primary creator of the editio vaticana) is really the father of semiology. It is true, that most of the Semiologists after Pothier, including Moquereau, tend to focus on only a few manuscripts out of very many. Here, I am a bit ambivalent. Again, I have some sympathy for Dom Pothier's quote, but also for those who prefer the oldest manuscripts. If one of the objectives is to restore the melodies to the form in which they first appeared in the first mss, than using the oldest mss makes perfect sense. And while there are differences between mss, nevertheless they typically illustrate FAR more unanimity than they do differences. But why choose some over others? As Mr Weaver points out, it's not because they are "pretty" like Mr O says, but because some mss offer more details, more information, than others. A comparison I might give would be: two painters attempting to paint the same image. One is a lesser skilled painter from the catacombs, the other is Michaelangelo. The catacomb painter's image is more plain and flat with not much detail. The Michaelangelo paints the same image but with incredible clarity and detail. Finally, I do not agree with everything Mocquereau says, nor entirely with what Cardine and other Semiologists say. In general, I think Mocquereau discovered the truth about rhythm as a whole, and more particularly in regard to the chant. But, when it comes to the interpretation of the neumes of the ancient manuscripts (which Pothier, Mocquereau and Gajard all used as well), I think Cardine is generally more correct.
If you haven’t already… could you PLEASE do some lessons on how to read the numes? I am really interested in efforts to recover the ancient methods. Any more detailed instructional/informational videos on semiology would also be awesome. If I could ask a question, when you interpret semiologically, it sounds to my ear like you might be slipping into a style more open to microtones (which I’m convinced is much closer to the way historically these chants would’ve been sung) Is that a standard feature of Cardine’s method?
Hello! While I do have some older videos explaining how to read square note neumes, I do not have any lessons explaining how to read the ancient neumes... on TH-cam, that is. I do teach this in-depth in my online master course as well as individually as a mini course, which you can find on my website, www.gregorianchantacademy.com. The ancient notations, however, give no precise indication of pitch, so any question of "micro tones" is merely a theory. If it sounded like I was slipping into microtones, it was probably because I was going either flat or sharp. :)
I just finished a workshop using the semiology method. I am excited to get the triplex books now that I have a better grasp of the St Gall notation. The rhythm in the Vatican edition primer always struck me as rather artificial.
How can you understand a rythm from an edition only ? Solesmes is not only an edition but a method ! like an oral tradition is essential and the notation, after, allow to remember the melody: We sing a chant we've heard before, and not make speculations from the writings or the words. Dom Cardine's interpretation is artificial, not considering the tradition, the natural rhythm, and the common sense. It can make us feel semiologist, expert, but not understand gregorian chant as a medieval chant, and SING TOGETHER AND PRAY ! God bless you.
This was really helpful, thank-you Christopher. Based on these versions you gave, I think I prefer a half way between radical semiology and solesme. I think it is possible to have a 'semiologically informed' solesme method, no?
Also, if just like to say that your tutorial videos have been very useful for me, and I've been singing chant in a schola for quite a few years now. We in my schola didn't get taught the ins and outs, or at least, not explicitly. Although I now realise that some of the singing method which was led was due to a partially semiological influence from our schola master.
Also, I'd just like to say that your tutorial videos have been very useful for me, and I've been singing chant in a schola for quite a few years now. We in my schola didn't get taught the ins and outs, or at least, not explicitly. Although I now realise that some of the singing method which was led was due to a partially semiological influence from our schola master.
Hello Xanaseb. Sorry for the very late reply. " I think it is possible to have a 'semiologically informed' solesme method, no?" Yes, I believe so. You might be aware - though many are not - that Mocquereau and Gajard both used semiology in their interpretations, writing the staffless neumes above the square notes in their personal chant books. While I follow, in general, the Solesmes Method, I do think that the printed ictus and rhythmical markings are sometimes placed on the wrong notes. But when it comes to the interpretation of the neumatic mss, I think Cardine is generally more correct. And so, my own personal interpretation is a kind of marriage of Moquereau and Cardine.
Solesmes method IS 'semiologically informed'. But not the notation, gregorian chant being not destined to intellectual semiologists like Dom Cardine (Was he a musician ? I don't think so) but to SINGERS. The notation, like in medieval period, come with an oral tradition ! We sing a chant we've been earing and earing, with masters. So the pieces can well be sing by a choir and precised and refined with semiology by directors and 'elite' singers, but in the same way.
The Solesmes method is more familiar to me, although the Semiological method is very interesting and sounds more fluid. I might still prefer the Solesmes, but I would be interested in seeing a Mass or liturgical office chanted according to the Semiological method.
The solesmes method also as the benefit to recognize that Latin has intrisic prosodic elements and the fact that although words have meaning they don't have a message without ties to a rethorical structure: The melody which is the entire point of why chanting is a thing in the first place. Meaning is not the point of chanting, the Message is the point, and to see so many people so aggressively missing the point is frightening because you can't get the meaning if you don't get the message first.
There is no ONE semiological method, there is as many methods as semiologists... and it's too random and arbitrary to sing together and PRAY ! Solesmes traditional method, with semiology to go deeper, according to the meaning of the word AND the melody, melodic phrasing, to the whole piece, according to the natural rhythm and ... the common sense ! Forgot Cardine artificial method.
@@redwithblackstripes That's the main issue ! Sadly, that's not what modernists and atheists who illegitimately take over the mighty gregorian chant look for. thanks, God bless you.
Dom Cardine is not more influenced by ancient manuscripts. Dom Mocquereau deeply knew the manuscripts and developped paleography, which we can't say about Dom Cardine. This one, modernist and revolutionary, used a pretended misunderstanding, without proving it, of the ancient manuscript, based on speculations, on his own ideas which hadn't been either proven nor sing, evenly ! In a word: imposture. Keep the tradition alive ! Don't let yourself be influenced by 'beautiful' ideas, "Gregorian chant is the word", gregorian chant is a chant, it is music. And music together. It's not declamation. It's not arbitrary. It's not boring. Cardine, like his contemporaries, is so disrespectful of Solesmes work but also of the natural rhythm and the spirituality of gregorian chant. Did you ever listen to a Cardine interpretation ? Like the modern atheists in "schola" who like to "revisit" the gregorian chant to make it a modern atheist chant... I can't listen to that, and moreover I CAN,'T PRAY WITH THAT !
The only flaw in the fairly ubiquitous [[traditional Solesmes]] interpretation is implementation. Namely * episemas are treated as doubles, or longer than double * the first note of a quilisma treated double, or longer than double * the middle note of a marked salicus treated as double, or longer than double * No musical cadence (speed, volume) at full bars * pauses at half bars as long as at full bars, instead of "stealing" time from the previous neume. * choral breathing at quarter bars, and indiscriminately after words ending with long notes. * Not applying nuance to the word accent * The director not actually understanding how to place the ictus, getting about half of them wrong. This is pretty much what you see everywhere. You also pretty much were guilty of all of these first demo, so that's not really a good example of the Mocquereau method. You sang the third one the best, but that's because you sang it musically and the first one rather lifelessly, not because the Mocquereau method inclines the singer to sing lifelessly. Besides, what the Mocquereau method (or the ictus method) has over the others is a consistent, practical, but also adaptable rule for precisely directing, which is indispensable for all choirs, whether mainly composed of those with low skill, high skill, or a mixture of both. The ictus directing method is malleable, adaptable to be "smarter" or "dumber" for the needs of the choir, but all the while remaining fundamentally the same "language" of direction, such that when a choir makes progress, the ictus method is still useful. It allows the director a high degree of control in the beginning when the schola is fresh, and a high degree of nuance when the schola is advanced. I would even say that you could, for an advanced schola, introduce all the nuances you did in the third demo using a variation of the ictus twos and threes method of chironomy. But only with the twos and threes as a foundation would it be feasible for a schola to easily sing the third thing, after much practice with the ictus and personal nuances of the director, and even then, only with the most skilled and intelligent singers, and probably only for the verse on an alleluia or gradual, which admits 4 cantors max.
Hello TheZestanor. I think we are pretty much in agreement. If you have seen my video on my Top 9 Best Scholas, you know my top 2 favorites are #1 Fontgombault and #2 Solesmes (#1 directed by Gajard, #2 by Jean Claire). I agree with most of your observances about the flaws except that some them are the way it is typically sung and not what Mocquereau and Gajard actually teach. For example, they do not teach that the episemas are doubles/longer than double, but rather that they are not even markings of length at all. Instead, they teach they are markings of expressions, which, materially speaking, usually results in some amount of lengthening but is more than simply lengthening. And also that they should generally NOT be doubled, but that in some particular cases that may be appropriate. Similarly for the Salicus; they teach it should be slightly lengthend but not doubled/more than doubled. As for the quilisma: they teach that the ictus is placed on the preceding note which is lengthened but not necessarily doubled. However, when you listen to Gajard's directing or Fontgombault or any other schola, they almost always do double it, which would, in effect place a new ictus on the quilisma itself. BUT, if you listed to the rare recordings of Mocquereau directing, he treats the note before the quilisma very lightly, not doubling it. As for my rendition, I do not claim that it is perfect but only decent. "You also pretty much were guilty of all of these first demo." Perhaps some, but for example, I do not think I doubled the middle note of the salicus, nor did I "breathe at the quarter bar or indiscriminately after words ending with long notes" such as "illi"; but the quilisma, yes, I admit I did double that. But for the most part I did respect the word accents. As for other issues like treating half bars like full bars (again, not necessarily what they teach but the way it typically is sung)... singing the chant entirely solo, it is a little difficult - for me anyway - to not treat them as I did and still have a gentle flow. If I had additional singers to help support the line I would have treated them differently. The only place I really goofed with the ictus was a little bit at "testamentum" and definitely at "sacerdotii dignitas." Doing the different styles side-by-side like this got me a little confused. But my third demonstration is not really reconcilable with the Solesmes Method in that Solesmes Method dictates that each note is relatively equal in duration (unless it is lengthened), and my third demonstration by no means observed that. You might be aware - though many are not - that Mocquereau and Gajard both used semiology in their interpretations, writing the staffless neumes above the square notes in their personal chant books. While I follow, in general, the Solesmes Method, I do think that the printed ictus and rhythmical markings are sometimes placed on the wrong notes. But when it comes to the interpretation of the neumatic mss, I think Cardine is generally more correct. And so, my own personal interpretation is a kind of marriage of Moquereau and Cardine.
@@GregorianChantAcademy Hey thanks for the reply! I think we're generally in agreement too. I think though that one can (and should) get a lot of mileage out of "roughly equal in duration." The best directors that I've sung with (and I've tried to implement this myself, whenever I'm called upon to do this) treat the episemas, salicus, and quilisma not as double, but as somewhere between 1 + 1/3 and 1 + 1/2, if they can help it, and the ensemble is on top of the ball that day. The torculus with episema, comes out something like quarter note triplets (if punctum=quarter note), which audibly breaks out of the "roughly equal" rule of thumb, while also being logical and singable to large ensembles. They direct each note of it separately, breaking out of the strict ictus chironomy. For the sake of coherence, when you have a 1-2-3 count, and the first one is "long"; either a quilisma or an episema, I do tend to add a pseudo-ictus on the second note, though I direct it faster. When I first learned the ictus chironomy I followed it rather slavishly (and incorrectly, frequently), but I've been taught since then about how it is malleable. I've never personally moved an ictus, but it's certainly doable, especially in the situation where it's just not working for the ensemble to sing it that way. The first few times I directed a Credo, I told my singers that during one string of words I was just going to stop directing, because I couldn't sing those words (Credo I, apostolicam ecclesiam) and direct at the same time without messing up. You're right that some of the things in the third demonstration, namely singing certain notes faster than the standard punctum would be a departure from the norm. I've only experienced departures from "roughly equal in duration" by non-discrete (not a multiple of 1) lengthenings, not shortenings. Yet, I think you could implement this if it seemed desirable during a gradual verse sung with proficient schola members. The same way you can break out of the strict ictus chironomy system to demonstrate each note of a torculus with an episema, you could break out of the same system and invent some commonly understood gesture to demonstrate a neume that you want to be sung significantly faster than standard punctum. Admittedly this is no longer the "old Solesmes" method. I suppose more than anything I'm attached to the chironomy that usually comes with that method. I wouldn't be surprised if we ran into each other sometime in the future years later, since it's a small world.
@@zestotemp "I've never personally moved an ictus, but it's certainly doable..." When I run across such instances and have the time to do rewrite it, I will certainly do so and while I'm at it, make other desirable modifications. Gajard would also occaisionaly move the printed ictus if he didn't like its position (I imagine just crossing it out with a pencil and writing it in its new position).
So I was just re-reading a section in Mocquereau's "Le Nombre Musical" and decided to take another look at his section on the quilisma. He points out, from various different sources, that clearly the note before the quilisma is "always to be slightly lengthened and sustained" but also adds that, based on various other sources, it can also be doubled. And I realized that, duh, of course it can be doubled without the ictus being placed on the quilisma (as I incorrectly said earlier that doing so "would, in effect place a new ictus on the quilisma itself"). If it is doubled, the quilisma simply becomes the 3rd beat rather than the second. Don't know why I missed that. But of course, what he doesn't mention or demonstrate - but which Cardine does - is the importance of the note after the quilisma.
@@GregorianChantAcademy Cardine's method is not associable with Solesmes method (the traditional). Cardine didn't even respect the principles of the chant and the natural rythm, respect the melodic phrasing. Solesmes method didn't need Cardine speculations which had been encourage by the impostors / destroyers / ignorants at the Vatican. It is based on nothing. Being a specialist, and beeing right about certain neumes doesn't make you a good and faithful singer. Cardine was he a singer or a musician ? Did he proponed a complete and coherent method ? He just made a mess. Let put him and the modernists back at their place, and talk deeper about the one and only way we have for now to sing and pray together. God bless you and your singing.
How much did the classical Solesmus differ from the old solesmus method of dom Joseph Pothier ….what method is then followed in antiphonale monasticum of 1934???I prefer dom Pothier solemus method because it is approved by ST.Pius the X……the word saint clears many confusions ….
The biggest difference between the two is in their principles. Pothier's theory was based on "Free Speech Rhythm" believing the rhythm of text was most important and dictated the rhythm of the melodies (except for melismas), where as Mocquereau's theory was based on "Free Musical Rhythm" believing that the music, as music, has its own well defined rhythm distinct from the rhythm of the text and this is supported by many medieval writings. Some times the rhythm of text predominates (e.g. syllabic chants), sometimes the rhythm of the text and that of melody match with each other (semi-ornate/neumatic chants), and sometimes the rhythm of the melody predominates (melismatic chants). This was the position of Moquereau. Of course, there are other differences too, like when and where to place a lengthening, etc.
Yes, St. Pius X approved of Pothier's method and Pius X was a saint, but this doesn't mean he was infallible in this matter. Papal infallibility is only in regard to matters of Faith and Morals and only in a very official, restricted capacity. Not only could Pius X have been mistaken, but so could Pothier, Mocquereau, Cardine, and everyone else. We're dealing with music (not faith and morals) over 1000 years old with very limited data beyond the manuscripts themselves. Despite his great sanctity, Pius X was not an expert in chant and that is why set up a commission made of those who were. The primary reason why he approved of Pothier's method is because Pothier was the head of the commission. Of course Pothier would favor his own theory, why wouldn't he? It only makes sense. And because he favored his own theory and was the president of the commission and made the final decision as far as the commission goes, the pope put his stamp of approval on it. BUT, Pius X was also - on a personal level - a big fan of Mocquereau's theory and the books he published and he praised them highly. I do not hold to any one theory or approach entirely. I believe a lot of what Mocquereau teaches is true, but I also find issue with some of it. I also believe a lot of what Cardine (and Pothier before him) teach is true, but find issue with some it as well. Nobody has all the answers and in the end, it is impossible to know exactly they would have sang the chants more than 1000 years ago. I believe what is important is to first of all sing with all the humility, charity and purity of heart that we can, and then to sing the chants in a way which is aesthetically pleasing and helps to draw the minds and hearts of both singers and hearers up to God, to help lead us into prayer and contemplation. If we can do that, we are doing a good job no matter what method is being used.
@@Remigius_Servus I suggest you to sing a chant following the Fr Dr Vollaerts/Dr Jan van Biezen rhythm, it may something simple like an office antiphon (you can even notice they fit a binary rhythm perfectly) or an introit or communion antiphon, then take your own conclusions
@@raphael.cavalcanti3301 Thanks, I talked about Catholic authority, not infallibility. Yes, thanks God, we have authority from masters and clerks who have defined sacred music.
@@raphael.cavalcanti3301 Mensuralism, which had been the destruction of gregorian soon after its apogee and, thanks god, showed as totally inappropriate by the restauration, the musicology and the paleography, is so ugly, pitiful ! Suggest that to a novice who never heard gregorian chant by monks ! not to a musician singing and listening and studying it everyday ! I "suggest" you not to make suggestions, but listen to gregorian chant by the monks who sing catholic gregorian chant in the tradition of gregorian chant. "Note Values and Their Equivalents in Modern Notation": OK, that's pretty clear, we already know that we're not talking about Gregorian chant. No matter what you "prefer" or "suggest", gregorian chant is sacred and catholic, and don't need your "dr speculations", gregorian chant is a prayer, the chant of eternity. It's a real treasure of expression that's you won't find with this state of mind. Gregorian chant should fit a binary rhythm ? That's the exact opposite process, binary rhythm may be used in specific situations. Once again, stiil no mistake here, gregorian chant 's been made by catholics for God. God may open your eyes and so your ears, no offense to the doctors.
How can melody be more important than text? Only deprived individual could do this, why Brother are you promoting that profound error. Without Sacred text there would be nothing. Of course the older is more difficult but it better resembles life of a soul and spirit. Not forces of nature which are like you said, resemble the order of the universe laws, but the God's life within a soul that transcend the seeable universe. Denounce the Macorone.
I never said that music is more important than the text. What I did say is that, according to Mocquereau, RHYTHMICALLY speaking, the music (chant) is superior to the rhythm of the text (except for syllabic chants) because Gregorian Chant is not just prayer but SUNG prayer, i.e. music, and as music it has its own rhythm and as the ancients would say: music is not subject to the laws of grammar. I am simply explaining the difference here between Mocquereau and Cardine.
Why are conservative Catholics in the U.S. preoccupied with this 'Solesmes vs semiology' debate? Maybe they prefer black and white thinking. Others have moved on.
Not a style. You are making following semiology appear as if it was a choice, but to be fair it is not! Semiology tells you what the rhythm is: it is just written in a different way because it is, of course, non mensural, but it is there and pretty clear and transparent too, thanks to the work of Cardine and those who followed (I’d say Agustoni and Göschl among the others). Not following it would be the same as playing a Nocturne by Chopin by just following the pitches and completely ignoring the rhythmic values of the notes. Making it appear as an “interpretative choice” is just an excuse not to learn semiology, which is exactly what most people who sing gregorian chant these days do. And it is hilarious, because the various episemas, punctum moras and such have been inserted by Solesmes precisely with the intention of translating some of the indications in the adiastematic notations, but with various degrees of inaccuracy due to the fact that not much was known at the time. Study semiology, lose some of your eyesight looking at manuscripts to make paleographic tables and semiological analyses, and then maybe you’ll be able to sing the real thing. There are only two way of singing gregorian chant: well and badly.
Thank you for your comment and a blessed season of Pentecost to you. In reply, not only do I think it impossible to alter your view, I have no intention of doing so. We each have our own educated views, which we are perfectly entitled to, and there is nothing wrong with having differing opinions. In fact, there is almost a kind of beauty in it if we accept it humbly. What I write is not so much for you, then, but for others who may happen to read this. While I do agree there exist some inaccuracies in the Solesmes markings/method, I humbly and respectfully disagree with your assessment that Semiology itself tells you what the rhythm is, clear and transparent... and Saulnier would say the same. I have studied directly under Saulnier and am also an acquaintance of Alberto Turco who has been extremely gracious with me. I know very well the writing of Cardine, Agustoni and Goschl as well as the study of Gregorian Aesthetics. I have studied Semiology for 17 years now; I have "lost my eye sight" studying and analyzing and comparing manuscripts and tables, making many handwritten copies and engaging in the work of melodic restorations. Neither Saulnier, Turco nor even Cardine himself would claim that Semiology lays out the rhythm plain and clear, but instead, provides rhythmical nuances. They all agree in that the rhythm itself is largely determined by a careful analysis of text and melody (separately and in relation) as well as the compositional style, structure, mode, type of chant, aesthetics, etc. To sing well does not merely mean "musically." One can sing it musically perfect, but if it is sung with pride, arrogance, and vainglory, it is still sung badly. To sing chant well also requires humility and charity.
@@GregorianChantAcademy I frequently note the differences in the internet today, as we evolve what proper internet discourse might be, of those who state things as a fact , e.g. 'that building is ugly' , and those who say 'in my experience/ it seems to me/ in my training /, etc. '
Yes, the revolutionary, arbitrary, immanent theories, speculations of Dom Cardine, who wasn't a musician, who didn't respect either the tradition nor the natural rhythm, nor the gregorian phrasing (!!!) ARE A CHOICE. It's based on nothing. You stay with your friends in your office, continue to laugh and love your thoughts, we sing for God in the catholic tradition.
@@Remigius_Servus You stay with your friends in your church, continue to pray and love your thoughts, enjoy what's left of your lifetime because there is nothing beyond it.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Please continue with lessons! God bless you. I'm homeschooling my 6 year old who is fascinated by sacred music.
The first time I ever heard Gregorian Chant sung according to semiological principles, I instantly felt that I was hearing something more visceral and more genuine than the kind of chant I had heard before. At that time, I knew nothing of the Solesmes method or of semiology - it was just an emotional reaction to the music.
Having since studied semiology under Father Stephen Concordia of St. Vincent Archabbey, I have become intellectually convinced that semiology brings us much closer to the Gregorian as it was sung in the early centuries.
Thank you for your clear exposition of the different schools of interpretation!
Wow, what a small world. I was just conversing with Msgr Alberto Turco and today he told me about Fr Stephen Concordia and sent me his email... then you write and mention having studied with him. Haha what a small world.
I hope you and Father Stephen (and me) can get together some day - I think it would be a stimulating conversation!
Your emotions told you it's more "genuine". Exactly the modernist way of approching anything. Semiology and paleography was the purpose of Dom Mocquereau and all the catholic (traditional) musicologist before Vatican II. Gregorian chant is an oral tradition, for which the schola don't need St Gall, except for directors and specific situations. Since you, and your school of thought, intellectualized semiology, ignoring music, natural rhythm, and good sense you produce a chant you like, you listen to yourself, for sure, but we can't keep listening to that, we can't sing together, and moreover we can't pray.
Wonderful singing and teaching.
I prefer what enables the words’ rhythm to express the meaning: switching to that insight, years ago, was eye opening for me. I prefer the more “radical” semiological interpretation, although I think we need to be quite free to choose what works musically and pastorally. Today, I sing regularly in a schola of two, so we can be quite fluent in our celeriters and ornaments, and much is done solo: in a large schola this is more difficult, and a steadier tactus seems appropriate.
A steadier tactus seems appropriate for a schola, and for... praying. Solesmes traditional method is the method based on tradition and science, and on praying. Did you ever listen to Dom Gajard recordings ?
I love the tutorials! We need it for our schola. Thank you for all you have done❤
If only we could hear the chant of the holy monks before the reformation and revolutionary wars
Thank you for your dedication to your art!
Thank you for all your amazing work and for sharing your knowledge Monsieur Jasper.
I like both methods. I think for a big choir the solesmes method is more edifying. With a smaller group or even 1 or 2 the semiological method is preferable. It's beautiful to hear the nuances that a good singer can bring out of the chants and bring their own personal devotion out through the semiological, but the Solesmes method has a certain grandeur and dignity that brings it closer to the idea of the angelic choirs. The semiological makes me think of David fleeing Saul, the Solesmes the Courts of Heaven.
Please do keep uploading works that help us to sing better. I thank God for teachers such as yourself.
How many method will you have ? For each size of choir ??? Today, there is ONE method to sing gregorian chant and PRAY, it's the traditional Solesmes Method, which is also based on natural rythm and moreover on medieval approach that a word alone is nothing, All in gregorian chant is linked, until the legato of the thinging.
So this Solesmes method, before the revolution, make us sing in one way, together, and can be precised, refined thanks to St Gall notation AND TRADITION, not Dom Cardine's speculation !
That is catholic.
This introït is a praise of the saint. I prefer the subtle semiological method, not because it is more "praying", but because there is a feeling of the joy of the saint entering heaven.
|I have to say that the presentation of the Dom Mocquereau method is honest and accurate (both the theory and the example), and this is not common among people departing from it.
There is remarkable recent scholarship on Guido's pedogogy, the hexachordal solfeggio which informed what we call "classical music" as well as earlier styles and chanting until "reforms" in the 19th century erased the long tradition. "The Solfeggio Tradition" 2020 Nicholas Baragwanath. You can find 2 long interviews with him on TH-cam. He has highly detailed pedagogy from primary sources. I hope the church will become aware of this and other scholarship now available to honor the many generations of incredible Catholic voices, and their progeny.
My dad and I have been the sole cantors (singing together) for my local Latin Mass since late 2020 (though I was part of the schola before then). We've sort of developed our own version of reading the chant very similar to the "radical Semiology" method, which is also easier to sing, imo, for a solo singer needing to preserve breath. Plus, I personally think that making the words and phrases as clear as possible is very important, so I like how the semiology method allows for the music to ornament the words rather than for the words to be superfluous to the music.
Once again, this is ideology, far from reality. The liturgy, the gregorian chant don't need "your version", don't need the "SUPER VERSION WHICH I FOUND IN MYSELF" like all the pitiful modernist find everything, in themselve ! thank you ! that's not the purpose. Did you even listen to Dom Gajard recordings ??? Did you try to pray while singing or listening ?
A solo singer will sing a better version of the pieces, but not an OTHER version. It will be more expressive, more delicate but not DIFFERENT.
Music is serving the word of god, but it's still music.
What is "radical", in fact partial (radical / roots / tradition) is your approach which see the words without the sentences, and the whole piece. A word alone is nothing. With Dom Cardine and the "New Solesmes method", you sing a juxtaposition of word which mean nothing.
Thank you for this! I used to sing in the Scola Cantorum at a Catholic university...we had very little weekly rehearsal time, and though we used the Graduale Triplex, the Vatican-trained Nun who led the group never really explained those red Squiggles. It was very frustrating. I still have my Graduale Triplex. Will have to pull it out of Storage.
4:41 Solesmes Method
8:18 Semiology
Wow, great video.
Will have to listen to longer pieces - I’m not a musician. Up to now, I thought Solesmes method was the only one - although I’m from the Uk, have actually been to Solesmes to hear it sung. The most moving chant i have heard is that of the sisters of St Cecilia’s Abbey on the Isle of Wight (uk).
I just listened to a talk given by Jeff Ostrowski at CC Watershed, and he basically is advocating for the use of the Editio Vaticana using the official rhythm. He says that the rhythmic signs added by Dom Mocquereau add elongations where they shouldn't be and otherwise alter the rhythm often disrupting the flow of the melody. He critiques also Semiology, saying that the notation is based only on a couple manuscripts that often contradict each other let alone the other thousands (regarding the rhythm). He believes these marking were from individual notes made by monks for their own use and were not meant to be universalized. What do you make of such arguments? It seems to me gregorian chant has enough built in freedom to sing how one wishes, but there are definite differences between the official Vatican approved edition and what is often taught and used throughout the world. Let me know what you think. Thanks for all the content!
Hello and thank you for your question. Yes, I am familiar with Mr Ostrowski and have also listened to the talk you mention. He has been advocating the Editio Vaticana rhythm for several years now. While I respect Mr Ostrowski and his views, I also respectfully disagree with him in general. While he does make some good points in that talk, in general I disagree with most of his views. While he is correct that the Editio Vaticana is the "official" rhythm, that does not necessarily equate to the original rhythm of those who composed the chants in the 8th-9th centuries, nor the best rhythmical approach. It's just the rhythm which has received the Vatican's official stamp of approval. On the other hand, I do sympathize with Dom Pothier's view as expressed in the preface to the Editio Vaticana (which he quoted) and Mr O's final statement that: one simply needs to look at the available evidence and arguments and make up one's own mind.
Have you listened to Mr Charles Weaver's presentation (th-cam.com/video/zuRyE0iYLNM/w-d-xo.html) defending the Solesmes Method? I believe his was presented as the lecture following Mr O's. I think he also makes some very good observations, though it seemed to me that he kind of presented Mocquereau's theory as being based of off 19th century theorists such as Momigny, stating that this is the source for the ictus. While he Mocquereau was certainly influed by Momigny and others, I don't think it is entirely true to say that that is the source for the ictus because Mocquereau clearly explains and demonstrates this as being part of the very nature and essence of rhythm.
While I do generally agree with the principles of the Solesmes Method (of Moquereau), I do think the application of it is sometimes incorrect: i.e. in the light of the manuscripts, the ictus and rhythmical markings sometimes being placed on the wrong notes.
As for semiology, Dom Pothier (primary creator of the editio vaticana) is really the father of semiology. It is true, that most of the Semiologists after Pothier, including Moquereau, tend to focus on only a few manuscripts out of very many. Here, I am a bit ambivalent. Again, I have some sympathy for Dom Pothier's quote, but also for those who prefer the oldest manuscripts. If one of the objectives is to restore the melodies to the form in which they first appeared in the first mss, than using the oldest mss makes perfect sense. And while there are differences between mss, nevertheless they typically illustrate FAR more unanimity than they do differences. But why choose some over others? As Mr Weaver points out, it's not because they are "pretty" like Mr O says, but because some mss offer more details, more information, than others. A comparison I might give would be: two painters attempting to paint the same image. One is a lesser skilled painter from the catacombs, the other is Michaelangelo. The catacomb painter's image is more plain and flat with not much detail. The Michaelangelo paints the same image but with incredible clarity and detail.
Finally, I do not agree with everything Mocquereau says, nor entirely with what Cardine and other Semiologists say. In general, I think Mocquereau discovered the truth about rhythm as a whole, and more particularly in regard to the chant. But, when it comes to the interpretation of the neumes of the ancient manuscripts (which Pothier, Mocquereau and Gajard all used as well), I think Cardine is generally more correct.
@@GregorianChantAcademy I regret I cannot put *multiple* thumbs up to your answer !!!
Would like to see more videos about semiology
If you haven’t already… could you PLEASE do some lessons on how to read the numes? I am really interested in efforts to recover the ancient methods.
Any more detailed instructional/informational videos on semiology would also be awesome.
If I could ask a question, when you interpret semiologically, it sounds to my ear like you might be slipping into a style more open to microtones (which I’m convinced is much closer to the way historically these chants would’ve been sung) Is that a standard feature of Cardine’s method?
Hello! While I do have some older videos explaining how to read square note neumes, I do not have any lessons explaining how to read the ancient neumes... on TH-cam, that is. I do teach this in-depth in my online master course as well as individually as a mini course, which you can find on my website, www.gregorianchantacademy.com. The ancient notations, however, give no precise indication of pitch, so any question of "micro tones" is merely a theory. If it sounded like I was slipping into microtones, it was probably because I was going either flat or sharp. :)
wonderful, thank you.
Having the Triplex while earing is necessary to compare the notations and their interpretation.
I just finished a workshop using the semiology method. I am excited to get the triplex books now that I have a better grasp of the St Gall notation. The rhythm in the Vatican edition primer always struck me as rather artificial.
How can you understand a rythm from an edition only ?
Solesmes is not only an edition but a method ! like an oral tradition is essential and the notation, after, allow to remember the melody: We sing a chant we've heard before, and not make speculations from the writings or the words.
Dom Cardine's interpretation is artificial, not considering the tradition, the natural rhythm, and the common sense.
It can make us feel semiologist, expert, but not understand gregorian chant as a medieval chant, and SING TOGETHER AND PRAY !
God bless you.
This was really helpful, thank-you Christopher. Based on these versions you gave, I think I prefer a half way between radical semiology and solesme. I think it is possible to have a 'semiologically informed' solesme method, no?
Also, if just like to say that your tutorial videos have been very useful for me, and I've been singing chant in a schola for quite a few years now. We in my schola didn't get taught the ins and outs, or at least, not explicitly. Although I now realise that some of the singing method which was led was due to a partially semiological influence from our schola master.
Also, I'd just like to say that your tutorial videos have been very useful for me, and I've been singing chant in a schola for quite a few years now. We in my schola didn't get taught the ins and outs, or at least, not explicitly. Although I now realise that some of the singing method which was led was due to a partially semiological influence from our schola master.
Hello Xanaseb. Sorry for the very late reply.
" I think it is possible to have a 'semiologically informed' solesme method, no?"
Yes, I believe so. You might be aware - though many are not - that Mocquereau and Gajard both used semiology in their interpretations, writing the staffless neumes above the square notes in their personal chant books. While I follow, in general, the Solesmes Method, I do think that the printed ictus and rhythmical markings are sometimes placed on the wrong notes. But when it comes to the interpretation of the neumatic mss, I think Cardine is generally more correct. And so, my own personal interpretation is a kind of marriage of Moquereau and Cardine.
Solesmes method IS 'semiologically informed'. But not the notation, gregorian chant being not destined to intellectual semiologists like Dom Cardine (Was he a musician ? I don't think so) but to SINGERS. The notation, like in medieval period, come with an oral tradition ! We sing a chant we've been earing and earing, with masters. So the pieces can well be sing by a choir and precised and refined with semiology by directors and 'elite' singers, but in the same way.
Very interesting!!! I am trying to read the Text book of Gregorian chant according to the Solesmes Method. I cannot understand what is being said
Have you read don Paolo Ferretti ?
Sounds are energy
Belíssimo!
The Solesmes method is more familiar to me, although the Semiological method is very interesting and sounds more fluid. I might still prefer the Solesmes, but I would be interested in seeing a Mass or liturgical office chanted according to the Semiological method.
The solesmes method also as the benefit to recognize that Latin has intrisic prosodic elements and the fact that although words have meaning they don't have a message without ties to a rethorical structure: The melody which is the entire point of why chanting is a thing in the first place. Meaning is not the point of chanting, the Message is the point, and to see so many people so aggressively missing the point is frightening because you can't get the meaning if you don't get the message first.
There is no ONE semiological method, there is as many methods as semiologists...
and it's too random and arbitrary to sing together and PRAY !
Solesmes traditional method, with semiology to go deeper, according to the meaning of the word AND the melody, melodic phrasing, to the whole piece, according to the natural rhythm and ... the common sense !
Forgot Cardine artificial method.
@@redwithblackstripes That's the main issue ! Sadly, that's not what modernists and atheists who illegitimately take over the mighty gregorian chant look for.
thanks,
God bless you.
Dom Cardine is not more influenced by ancient manuscripts. Dom Mocquereau deeply knew the manuscripts and developped paleography, which we can't say about Dom Cardine.
This one, modernist and revolutionary, used a pretended misunderstanding, without proving it, of the ancient manuscript, based on speculations, on his own ideas which hadn't been either proven nor sing, evenly ! In a word: imposture. Keep the tradition alive ! Don't let yourself be influenced by 'beautiful' ideas, "Gregorian chant is the word", gregorian chant is a chant, it is music. And music together. It's not declamation. It's not arbitrary. It's not boring.
Cardine, like his contemporaries, is so disrespectful of Solesmes work but also of the natural rhythm and the spirituality of gregorian chant.
Did you ever listen to a Cardine interpretation ? Like the modern atheists in "schola" who like to "revisit" the gregorian chant to make it a modern atheist chant... I can't listen to that, and moreover I CAN,'T PRAY WITH THAT !
The only flaw in the fairly ubiquitous [[traditional Solesmes]] interpretation is implementation. Namely
* episemas are treated as doubles, or longer than double
* the first note of a quilisma treated double, or longer than double
* the middle note of a marked salicus treated as double, or longer than double
* No musical cadence (speed, volume) at full bars
* pauses at half bars as long as at full bars, instead of "stealing" time from the previous neume.
* choral breathing at quarter bars, and indiscriminately after words ending with long notes.
* Not applying nuance to the word accent
* The director not actually understanding how to place the ictus, getting about half of them wrong.
This is pretty much what you see everywhere. You also pretty much were guilty of all of these first demo, so that's not really a good example of the Mocquereau method. You sang the third one the best, but that's because you sang it musically and the first one rather lifelessly, not because the Mocquereau method inclines the singer to sing lifelessly. Besides, what the Mocquereau method (or the ictus method) has over the others is a consistent, practical, but also adaptable rule for precisely directing, which is indispensable for all choirs, whether mainly composed of those with low skill, high skill, or a mixture of both. The ictus directing method is malleable, adaptable to be "smarter" or "dumber" for the needs of the choir, but all the while remaining fundamentally the same "language" of direction, such that when a choir makes progress, the ictus method is still useful. It allows the director a high degree of control in the beginning when the schola is fresh, and a high degree of nuance when the schola is advanced. I would even say that you could, for an advanced schola, introduce all the nuances you did in the third demo using a variation of the ictus twos and threes method of chironomy. But only with the twos and threes as a foundation would it be feasible for a schola to easily sing the third thing, after much practice with the ictus and personal nuances of the director, and even then, only with the most skilled and intelligent singers, and probably only for the verse on an alleluia or gradual, which admits 4 cantors max.
Hello TheZestanor. I think we are pretty much in agreement. If you have seen my video on my Top 9 Best Scholas, you know my top 2 favorites are #1 Fontgombault and #2 Solesmes (#1 directed by Gajard, #2 by Jean Claire). I agree with most of your observances about the flaws except that some them are the way it is typically sung and not what Mocquereau and Gajard actually teach. For example, they do not teach that the episemas are doubles/longer than double, but rather that they are not even markings of length at all. Instead, they teach they are markings of expressions, which, materially speaking, usually results in some amount of lengthening but is more than simply lengthening. And also that they should generally NOT be doubled, but that in some particular cases that may be appropriate. Similarly for the Salicus; they teach it should be slightly lengthend but not doubled/more than doubled. As for the quilisma: they teach that the ictus is placed on the preceding note which is lengthened but not necessarily doubled. However, when you listen to Gajard's directing or Fontgombault or any other schola, they almost always do double it, which would, in effect place a new ictus on the quilisma itself. BUT, if you listed to the rare recordings of Mocquereau directing, he treats the note before the quilisma very lightly, not doubling it.
As for my rendition, I do not claim that it is perfect but only decent. "You also pretty much were guilty of all of these first demo." Perhaps some, but for example, I do not think I doubled the middle note of the salicus, nor did I "breathe at the quarter bar or indiscriminately after words ending with long notes" such as "illi"; but the quilisma, yes, I admit I did double that. But for the most part I did respect the word accents. As for other issues like treating half bars like full bars (again, not necessarily what they teach but the way it typically is sung)... singing the chant entirely solo, it is a little difficult - for me anyway - to not treat them as I did and still have a gentle flow. If I had additional singers to help support the line I would have treated them differently. The only place I really goofed with the ictus was a little bit at "testamentum" and definitely at "sacerdotii dignitas." Doing the different styles side-by-side like this got me a little confused.
But my third demonstration is not really reconcilable with the Solesmes Method in that Solesmes Method dictates that each note is relatively equal in duration (unless it is lengthened), and my third demonstration by no means observed that.
You might be aware - though many are not - that Mocquereau and Gajard both used semiology in their interpretations, writing the staffless neumes above the square notes in their personal chant books. While I follow, in general, the Solesmes Method, I do think that the printed ictus and rhythmical markings are sometimes placed on the wrong notes. But when it comes to the interpretation of the neumatic mss, I think Cardine is generally more correct. And so, my own personal interpretation is a kind of marriage of Moquereau and Cardine.
@@GregorianChantAcademy Hey thanks for the reply! I think we're generally in agreement too. I think though that one can (and should) get a lot of mileage out of "roughly equal in duration." The best directors that I've sung with (and I've tried to implement this myself, whenever I'm called upon to do this) treat the episemas, salicus, and quilisma not as double, but as somewhere between 1 + 1/3 and 1 + 1/2, if they can help it, and the ensemble is on top of the ball that day. The torculus with episema, comes out something like quarter note triplets (if punctum=quarter note), which audibly breaks out of the "roughly equal" rule of thumb, while also being logical and singable to large ensembles. They direct each note of it separately, breaking out of the strict ictus chironomy.
For the sake of coherence, when you have a 1-2-3 count, and the first one is "long"; either a quilisma or an episema, I do tend to add a pseudo-ictus on the second note, though I direct it faster. When I first learned the ictus chironomy I followed it rather slavishly (and incorrectly, frequently), but I've been taught since then about how it is malleable. I've never personally moved an ictus, but it's certainly doable, especially in the situation where it's just not working for the ensemble to sing it that way. The first few times I directed a Credo, I told my singers that during one string of words I was just going to stop directing, because I couldn't sing those words (Credo I, apostolicam ecclesiam) and direct at the same time without messing up.
You're right that some of the things in the third demonstration, namely singing certain notes faster than the standard punctum would be a departure from the norm. I've only experienced departures from "roughly equal in duration" by non-discrete (not a multiple of 1) lengthenings, not shortenings. Yet, I think you could implement this if it seemed desirable during a gradual verse sung with proficient schola members. The same way you can break out of the strict ictus chironomy system to demonstrate each note of a torculus with an episema, you could break out of the same system and invent some commonly understood gesture to demonstrate a neume that you want to be sung significantly faster than standard punctum. Admittedly this is no longer the "old Solesmes" method. I suppose more than anything I'm attached to the chironomy that usually comes with that method.
I wouldn't be surprised if we ran into each other sometime in the future years later, since it's a small world.
@@zestotemp "I've never personally moved an ictus, but it's certainly doable..." When I run across such instances and have the time to do rewrite it, I will certainly do so and while I'm at it, make other desirable modifications. Gajard would also occaisionaly move the printed ictus if he didn't like its position (I imagine just crossing it out with a pencil and writing it in its new position).
So I was just re-reading a section in Mocquereau's "Le Nombre Musical" and decided to take another look at his section on the quilisma. He points out, from various different sources, that clearly the note before the quilisma is "always to be slightly lengthened and sustained" but also adds that, based on various other sources, it can also be doubled. And I realized that, duh, of course it can be doubled without the ictus being placed on the quilisma (as I incorrectly said earlier that doing so "would, in effect place a new ictus on the quilisma itself"). If it is doubled, the quilisma simply becomes the 3rd beat rather than the second. Don't know why I missed that. But of course, what he doesn't mention or demonstrate - but which Cardine does - is the importance of the note after the quilisma.
@@GregorianChantAcademy Cardine's method is not associable with Solesmes method (the traditional). Cardine didn't even respect the principles of the chant and the natural rythm, respect the melodic phrasing. Solesmes method didn't need Cardine speculations which had been encourage by the impostors / destroyers / ignorants at the Vatican. It is based on nothing. Being a specialist, and beeing right about certain neumes doesn't make you a good and faithful singer. Cardine was he a singer or a musician ? Did he proponed a complete and coherent method ? He just made a mess. Let put him and the modernists back at their place, and talk deeper about the one and only way we have for now to sing and pray together.
God bless you and your singing.
Dommage que cette vidéo ne soit pas en français.
On peut la sous-titrer
@@PaleoalexPicturesLtd en effet, mais le résultat est parfois surprenant.
One can find the transcript elsewhere youtubetranscript and fix translation
How much did the classical Solesmus differ from the old solesmus method of dom Joseph Pothier ….what method is then followed in antiphonale monasticum of 1934???I prefer dom Pothier solemus method because it is approved by ST.Pius the X……the word saint clears many confusions ….
The biggest difference between the two is in their principles. Pothier's theory was based on "Free Speech Rhythm" believing the rhythm of text was most important and dictated the rhythm of the melodies (except for melismas), where as Mocquereau's theory was based on "Free Musical Rhythm" believing that the music, as music, has its own well defined rhythm distinct from the rhythm of the text and this is supported by many medieval writings. Some times the rhythm of text predominates (e.g. syllabic chants), sometimes the rhythm of the text and that of melody match with each other (semi-ornate/neumatic chants), and sometimes the rhythm of the melody predominates (melismatic chants). This was the position of Moquereau. Of course, there are other differences too, like when and where to place a lengthening, etc.
Yes, St. Pius X approved of Pothier's method and Pius X was a saint, but this doesn't mean he was infallible in this matter. Papal infallibility is only in regard to matters of Faith and Morals and only in a very official, restricted capacity. Not only could Pius X have been mistaken, but so could Pothier, Mocquereau, Cardine, and everyone else. We're dealing with music (not faith and morals) over 1000 years old with very limited data beyond the manuscripts themselves. Despite his great sanctity, Pius X was not an expert in chant and that is why set up a commission made of those who were. The primary reason why he approved of Pothier's method is because Pothier was the head of the commission. Of course Pothier would favor his own theory, why wouldn't he? It only makes sense. And because he favored his own theory and was the president of the commission and made the final decision as far as the commission goes, the pope put his stamp of approval on it. BUT, Pius X was also - on a personal level - a big fan of Mocquereau's theory and the books he published and he praised them highly. I do not hold to any one theory or approach entirely. I believe a lot of what Mocquereau teaches is true, but I also find issue with some of it. I also believe a lot of what Cardine (and Pothier before him) teach is true, but find issue with some it as well. Nobody has all the answers and in the end, it is impossible to know exactly they would have sang the chants more than 1000 years ago. I believe what is important is to first of all sing with all the humility, charity and purity of heart that we can, and then to sing the chants in a way which is aesthetically pleasing and helps to draw the minds and hearts of both singers and hearers up to God, to help lead us into prayer and contemplation. If we can do that, we are doing a good job no matter what method is being used.
@@GregorianChantAcademy thank you…. That clears some issues…anything pre 1955 is okay ….even the chant notes…got the info from gregorianchantbooks….
I prefer Fr Dr Vollaerts' mensuralism
mensuralism is a non sense, and had been annihilated by common sense, musicologists and catholic authority.
@@Remigius_Servus Catholic authority deals with faith and morals, not musicology
@@Remigius_Servus I suggest you to sing a chant following the Fr Dr Vollaerts/Dr Jan van Biezen rhythm, it may something simple like an office antiphon (you can even notice they fit a binary rhythm perfectly) or an introit or communion antiphon, then take your own conclusions
@@raphael.cavalcanti3301 Thanks, I talked about Catholic authority, not infallibility. Yes, thanks God, we have authority from masters and clerks who have defined sacred music.
@@raphael.cavalcanti3301 Mensuralism, which had been the destruction of gregorian soon after its apogee and, thanks god, showed as totally inappropriate by the restauration, the musicology and the paleography, is so ugly, pitiful ! Suggest that to a novice who never heard gregorian chant by monks ! not to a musician singing and listening and studying it everyday !
I "suggest" you not to make suggestions, but listen to gregorian chant by the monks who sing catholic gregorian chant in the tradition of gregorian chant.
"Note Values and Their Equivalents in Modern Notation": OK, that's pretty clear, we already know that we're not talking about Gregorian chant.
No matter what you "prefer" or "suggest", gregorian chant is sacred and catholic, and don't need your "dr speculations", gregorian chant is a prayer, the chant of eternity. It's a real treasure of expression that's you won't find with this state of mind.
Gregorian chant should fit a binary rhythm ? That's the exact opposite process, binary rhythm may be used in specific situations.
Once again, stiil no mistake here, gregorian chant 's been made by catholics for God.
God may open your eyes and so your ears, no offense to the doctors.
How can melody be more important than text? Only deprived individual could do this, why Brother are you promoting that profound error. Without Sacred text there would be nothing. Of course the older is more difficult but it better resembles life of a soul and spirit. Not forces of nature which are like you said, resemble the order of the universe laws, but the God's life within a soul that transcend the seeable universe. Denounce the Macorone.
I never said that music is more important than the text. What I did say is that, according to Mocquereau, RHYTHMICALLY speaking, the music (chant) is superior to the rhythm of the text (except for syllabic chants) because Gregorian Chant is not just prayer but SUNG prayer, i.e. music, and as music it has its own rhythm and as the ancients would say: music is not subject to the laws of grammar. I am simply explaining the difference here between Mocquereau and Cardine.
Maybe because it's music. and not ideology.
Why not using psalmody or declamation ?
Why are conservative Catholics in the U.S. preoccupied with this 'Solesmes vs semiology' debate? Maybe they prefer black and white thinking. Others have moved on.
Not a style. You are making following semiology appear as if it was a choice, but to be fair it is not! Semiology tells you what the rhythm is: it is just written in a different way because it is, of course, non mensural, but it is there and pretty clear and transparent too, thanks to the work of Cardine and those who followed (I’d say Agustoni and Göschl among the others). Not following it would be the same as playing a Nocturne by Chopin by just following the pitches and completely ignoring the rhythmic values of the notes. Making it appear as an “interpretative choice” is just an excuse not to learn semiology, which is exactly what most people who sing gregorian chant these days do. And it is hilarious, because the various episemas, punctum moras and such have been inserted by Solesmes precisely with the intention of translating some of the indications in the adiastematic notations, but with various degrees of inaccuracy due to the fact that not much was known at the time. Study semiology, lose some of your eyesight looking at manuscripts to make paleographic tables and semiological analyses, and then maybe you’ll be able to sing the real thing. There are only two way of singing gregorian chant: well and badly.
Thank you for your comment and a blessed season of Pentecost to you. In reply, not only do I think it impossible to alter your view, I have no intention of doing so. We each have our own educated views, which we are perfectly entitled to, and there is nothing wrong with having differing opinions. In fact, there is almost a kind of beauty in it if we accept it humbly. What I write is not so much for you, then, but for others who may happen to read this. While I do agree there exist some inaccuracies in the Solesmes markings/method, I humbly and respectfully disagree with your assessment that Semiology itself tells you what the rhythm is, clear and transparent... and Saulnier would say the same. I have studied directly under Saulnier and am also an acquaintance of Alberto Turco who has been extremely gracious with me. I know very well the writing of Cardine, Agustoni and Goschl as well as the study of Gregorian Aesthetics. I have studied Semiology for 17 years now; I have "lost my eye sight" studying and analyzing and comparing manuscripts and tables, making many handwritten copies and engaging in the work of melodic restorations. Neither Saulnier, Turco nor even Cardine himself would claim that Semiology lays out the rhythm plain and clear, but instead, provides rhythmical nuances. They all agree in that the rhythm itself is largely determined by a careful analysis of text and melody (separately and in relation) as well as the compositional style, structure, mode, type of chant, aesthetics, etc. To sing well does not merely mean "musically." One can sing it musically perfect, but if it is sung with pride, arrogance, and vainglory, it is still sung badly. To sing chant well also requires humility and charity.
@@GregorianChantAcademy I frequently note the differences in the internet today, as we evolve what proper internet discourse might be, of those who state things as a fact , e.g. 'that building is ugly' , and those who say 'in my experience/ it seems to me/ in my training /, etc. '
Yes, the revolutionary, arbitrary, immanent theories, speculations of Dom Cardine, who wasn't a musician, who didn't respect either the tradition nor the natural rhythm, nor the gregorian phrasing (!!!) ARE A CHOICE. It's based on nothing.
You stay with your friends in your office, continue to laugh and love your thoughts, we sing for God in the catholic tradition.
@@Remigius_Servus You stay with your friends in your church, continue to pray and love your thoughts, enjoy what's left of your lifetime because there is nothing beyond it.