- virga strata
I considered calling this post “Chironomic Neumes of the Adiastematic Manuscripts from Metz and Einsiedeln” just to make me look smart. But I have come to realize that some of the unnecessarily complicated jargon associated with Gregorian chant can be a stumbling block for those who want to learn to read the comparatively user-friedly manuscript notation.
- Eric Estrada
Everything starts out simple enough, with a single dot called a punctum. Even the names of two-note groups are easy to master: in a pes the second note is higher; in a clivis, the second one is lower. When we have three-note groups, however, there are more melodic possibilities: low-high-low (torculus), high-low-high (porrectus), low-high-high (scandicus), and high-low-low (climacus). By the time we get to four-note shapes, it starts getting ridiculous, with compound names such as pes sub-bipunctis, porrectus-flexus, and torculus-resupinus. Then, after going through all of that, the Solesmes method tells us — wait for it — that all of these groups are performed exactly the same way!
For those who find the nomenclature as unsatisfactory as the method, I have produced a little chart containing the fundamental note shapes from the Laon and St. Gall manuscripts along with their English names.
Note Shapes in Laon and St. Gall
I will begin using the English names in future articles, so please let me know what you think.
English names, blechh. Also, you have the excellent beginnings of a font there in that PDF, it would be neat if Gregorio could be modified to print out neumes like St Gall/Laon as well….
“Then, after going through all of that, the Solesmes method tells us — wait for it — that all of these groups are performed exactly the same way!”
This has always been a great puzzlement to me. Nearly every chant class I’ve attended begins with passing out a sheet full of neumes, names, and western equivalents, which we are all told we must know in order to sing chant. Then the list is never referred to again, and the more we get into chant we learn that the neumes are in fact useless (except for the conductor’s pet theories about the quillisma!) and all we need to do is read the pitches.
As for the English names, I don’t share the latinophilia of most chant enthusiasts, but I think it’s just as cumbersome to remember “rod”, etc instead of “virga, punctum”. Either way, I’m excited for this series!
That was certainly one of the first things that made jump ship. The other was the fact that this episema in Solesmes editions not only does not correspond to the majority of signs of length in the manuscripts, but its intended meaning is also completely different.
I’m hoping that these names will make more sense as students see them drawn on the board. The foot looks like a foot, and the hill a hill. The question mark is a little more difficult to see (although the Laon sign does resemble our own), but like the leaping note, its name will hopefully give us a better idea of its execution.
“Rod” is not such a common word in modern English the way “virga” is in Latin. Do you think “stick” would be more illustrative? Or “slash”?
Incantu, keep it up! Now . . . a video tutorial showing and “interpreting” each neume. I’ve seen numerous sheets like this one, but the author never seems to go to the next practical step for us neophytes.
Patience, Grasshopper.
Hey . . . I’m *still* trying to be patient! Where are my videos???
: )
Just got back from the Colloquium, and I’m in semiology mode, so I’m trying to strike while the iron is hot.
And yes, I think the CMAA is shifting more and more away from the traditional Solesmes method. Nearly all the chant leaders were using the semiological method, or at least, principles of it. Very interesting . . .
That’s exciting to hear!
I can’t imagine the CMAA with move completely away from Solesmes. It *is* practical, and easy to get a large group of chanters singing a large repertoire in a short rehearsal time. Hopefully, though, they’ll get away from the idea that this is somehow divinely inspired or historically informed.
I have just finished the outline for Session 1 of a 3 part workshop on the Graduale Novum. I will present the first two sessions in Boston this month and in SF in the coming season, followed by a recording.
I’ll post some examples on the Euouae.com chant blog soon.
(Any recordings from Colloquium I should listen to?)
–No, they won’t move completely away from Solesmes, nor do I think they should . . . but I thought that both schools co-existed quite well last week. And that is good news.
–Yes, we’d all love to see the results of your workshops.
–Colloq. recordings: Well, Jeffrey Morse did the men’s schola, and they did quite a bit of work with the signs, and I believe that Charles Cole’s women’s schola (which sang delightfully all week!) did as well. Schaefer’s class was *not* recorded, I don’t believe (though his from last year was), and I’m not sure about Wilko Brouwer’s class (they did some “sign-work” also). A friend of mine recorded quite a bit, so they should be up on Carl Dierschow’s site soon, I would think.
If by “coexist,” you mean side by side, that is indeed good news. If you mean that the early manuscripts (such as those found in the Graduale Novum) and the Solesmes edition can be reconciled with each other, I think that spells trouble. R. J. Blackley describes what is commonly referred to as Semiology (and as I think you use it here) as an attempt to reconcile the Solesmes school with the ancient manuscripts:
“Followers of the Solesmes school say that their method is not equalist, but nuanced. Yet nuancing is not a rhythm–one can only nuance some rhythm that already exists. A rhythm of nuances is no more possible in real life than the smile without the cat: a nuance graces a given rhythm as a smile graces a creature, both assuring an ease of interpretation.”
…
“Semiology nuances lengths that are, at their base, the same, and so Solesmes’ chant remains just as equalist in orientation as it always has been; only the clothing is a little different. But, as has been and can further be demonstrated, the shapes of the neumes themselves describe proportionally measurable longs and shorts.”
(source: http://www.scholaantiqua.net/rjohnblackley.htm)
What I propose (and what I think the editors of the GN follow) is an entirely different interpretation.