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!

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 KZfaq, 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. :)

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.

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 (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sNuCrKhhzr-wfoE.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 !!!

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.

On peut la sous-titrer

@@PaleoalexPicturesLtd en effet, mais le résultat est parfois surprenant.

One can find the transcript elsewhere youtubetranscript and fix translation

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….

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.

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.

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. '