On 10 Nov 2007 at 12:40, John Howell wrote: > At 10:04 PM -0600 11/9/07, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > >John Howell wrote: > >>But my comment was directed at the statement--I forget whose--that > >>square notation was not in use in Hildegard's time. > > > >I did not write that square notation was not in use, but rather that > >the rules and customs of interpretation as we know them today had > >not been systematized. For example, in the Rules for Interpretation > >of chant in the beginning of the Liber Usualis, Section IV, > >Paragraph 1, states authoritatively > > > >"Each note in Plainsong, whether isolated or ina group, whatever > >its shape, has the same value, the value of a quaver in figured > >music." > > You're correct, of course, but remember that they were trying to > explain to an audience steeped in Romantic period music and style a > totally different style concept in around 1903.
But I believe that Noel's point is correct -- there is no basis in fact for the Solesmes interpretation. Indeed, so far as I know, there is no evidence at all for the rhythmic (or non-rhythmic) performance of plainchant. And much of the Solesmes notation is an artificial construct, a conflation of many different notational approaches over a long span of time, and not just in regard to how they say about rhythm. > When I perform chant my ideal is to achieve a speech-rhythm which > reflects the text rather than a plodding string of 8th notes, and my > singers do a pretty good job of bringing it off effectively, as long > as I keep after them to sing it as they would speak it. Then you are going against the practice of Solesmes, and, I believe, against the evidence of the music. It seems quite clear to me that our modern ideas of text accent are completely contradicted by most musical settings before the Renaissance (and many *after* that time, too). Latin is one of the non-accented languages (i.e., poetry being structured by syllable count instead of by feet), so it seems to me that it's spurious to apply modern ideas of text accent to this music. (not that I don't do exactly that when singing plainchant -- I just don't claim it has any basis in anything but my modern conception of what sounds good) > Obviously if > the text itself is rhythmic poetry rather than prose, that will give > a rhythmic interpretation to the music, which is probably why the > musicians at Nostre Dame de Paris in the late 12th century felt it > necessary to invent the first rhythmic notation. Most plainchant texts are *not* poetry. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
