Greetings! I have taken an interest in the theory presented by Jan van Biezen, a short summary of which can be found here: http://www.janvanbiezen.nl/gregorian.html
And here also is a link to his book with a detailed review of the theory: https://www.amazon.com/Rhythm-Meter-Tempo-Gregorian-Chant/dp/1945416009#customerReviews
I study Byzantine chant and do not practice Gregorian chant, but nonetheless take interest in any new "approaches" to interpreting the Gregorian repertoire besides the famous Solesmes approach. Having found out about Jan van Biezen's approach, I tried to search for audio recordings of chant done according to his method, but found none. Do any such recordings exist? And is there any critique of or consensus on this method by other researchers? Thank you in advance!
Replies
"... so that the actual durations are, perhaps, 1.75, 0.25, and 1. ... so that 1.66 + 0.34 + 1 and 1.85 + 0.15 + 1 are both perceived by the ear as interpretations approximately equal to 1.75 + 0.25 + 1, as long as the total duration of the first long and the grace are equal to 1."
I made a mistake here. These numbers should say 0.75, 0.25, and 1 ... 0.66 + 0.34 + 1 ... 0.85 + 0.15 + 1 ... 0.75 + 0.25 + 1. The total is two beats, not three.
Metrical syncopations happen in the Antiphons. I am highly suspicious of rhythmic-level syncopations, i.e. syncopations between downbeats, and I do not believe they exist in Gregorian chant, at least not as the norm. Notice the seeming syncopations happen almost always around the semitone. On this subject, I would invite to create a separate thread to analyze these figures more closely.
Concerning the Micrologus:
"Tenor" in Guido's own usage is the duration of any note, not just the end of a phrase. (I will address "ultimae vocis mora" later in this post.) Also from Guido:
All these are common music terms found all over the first-millennium theory.
Even in the Micrologus, Guido's subject-object-verb agreement ties the "morula" immediately to the "voces":
"Tenor" at the beginning of the paragraph is separated from this clause by two other clauses. The sentence separation before "Sicque" is justified. Hence, the "morulam duplo longiorem vel duplo breviorem" is had by "aliae voces ab aliis", i.e. by some voices in relation to others, and not just by the "tenor, id est, ultimae vocis mora". Then, "id est varium tenorem" has to describe the "morulam" that is had by the "voces", not by the "tenor" three clauses before. Thence, "tenor" and "morula" are synonyms, as any Latin dictionary can tell you.
The comparative rhetorical figure "aliae voces ab alias", one thing "ab" another, is typical of descriptions of numerical proportions in music theory going back to the Patristic centuries. It is a direct recall of the traditional doctrine in Musica of ratio, the mathematical ratio or proportion between two numbers. Longa and brevis are specific terms, going all the way back to Classical Grammatica, for single and double length, both in note values and in syllable lengths in poetry, as evident in the first quote above.
As such, for Guido to add the adjective "tremulus" in addition, and in contrast, to two numerical rationes, while describing "aliae voces ab alias", implies that a trembling duration is not a normal ratio, i.e. it is not 1 tempus, 2 tempi, or 4 tempi, or at least not a straightforward note of such duration. If it were a mora that could be either 1 or 2 or 4, then relatively speaking, it would be 1 or 2 or 4, and so "aut tremulam" would be a tautology. Hence, "tremulam" is a special category of "morulam", in addition to "longior" and "brevior". And, as I showed above, this "morulam" clause describes any "vox", since the "ultimae vocis mora" belongs to the previous sentence.
The "ultimae vocis" sentence makes sense in the context of those before:
Just as Grammatica has "letters", "syllables", "parts", "feet", and "verses", so Musica has
This is the same idea as in today's music with notes, figures, phrases, riffs or motifs, and themes. Hence:
The divisions in this sentence are the same those mentioned two sentences earlier: the musical syllable, the part, and the distinction. Composite, and in English:
Since the morae or tenores are measured by ratio, this means that every unit of music, anywhere between 1 and, say, 24 notes, ends with a rationally fixed note value. And since this modulatio applies to the duration of "uniuscujusque vocis", it follows that every note in Gregorian chant is 1:2 with every other note, at least simplistically speaking in theory. (In practice, it is of course more ornate than that, as we discussed.)
Why then did Guido narrow his meaning of "tenor" to only the last note ("ultima vox") for only one sentence? Because it recalls to the mind of his eleventh-century disciple the similar syntactical divisions in Grammatica, and relays to him that the durations of note values are an integral part of the music's grammar. On this point, see also the "LkkL" or "LssL" drawing in Jan van Biezen's article on Gregorian Chant, which expresses this notion somewhat in a visual way.
In light of the above, it is clear that Guido is aligned with the music theory tradition of the seven centuries before him, and this is shown even further by Vollaerts.
It follows then that Guido's use of the word 'tremulus' should be in continuity with its use by earlier Theorists. Aurelian is clearer than any other on what the word 'tremulus' means, since he gives examples of quilismas and pressi, i.e. places where a note is 'bent' by a vocal effect and a grace note appears. I suppose then that examples of a quilisma furnished with episema might be considered as trembling durations, and I think you were hinting at this.
Alasdair, I do not see the discrepancy you see between the Commemoratio brevis and the performance tradition. My replies to each of your points:
Short and Long are not absolute note values. They are proportionally relative. The Theorists most often use the terms in an adjectival way to describe the comparison between notes, e.g. "vox ab vocem" or "tenor ab tenorem", whence they proceed to describe with comparative words how one note is "shorter" than another, that another is "twice" the one.
Moreover, the example Ego sum via is an Antiphon in the long syllabic style, not in the neumatic style. These two styles of solemnity follow at the same moderately slow tempo class, as proven by their comixture in certain Antiphons. As such, a lone note on a syllable is 'short' in relation to a 'long' note at the end of a syllabic figure, but that same 'short' note is also 'long' in relation to the quick notes found in neumatic and melismatic figures. A quarter note is long in comparison to an eighth note, but short in comparison to a half note. This explanation fits well with the observed fact that the episema usually means twice in syllabic contexts the duration it normally has in neumatic contexts.
Intermediate, or sub-breve, durations are not mentioned by Commemoratio brevis, probably because the Commemoratio is a document on psalm tones, small responsories, and other syllabic chants, where such durations hardly happen; they normally happen in neumatic contexts where the voice can enjoy more freedom of movement, due to the smaller number of syllable breaks. On top of that, smaller-than-short durations, which I generically call grace notes, are probably, as I argued in the previous post, not perceived as actual notes by the Latin Theorists, but rather as effects on the other notes that are long and short.
I prefer to seek harmony on account of the patterns of consistency I have seen between the Theorists, the manuscripts, and the Musica tradition prior to 1050.
In practice, yes, I agree. But I believe that all such intermediates can be perceived by the mind of the Early Medieval Theorist in terms strictly of ratios of long and short, with graceful or trembling effects. Jan van Biezen calls attention to long + short + long constructs in the notation. We can perceive these as any of (1) dotted quarter + eighth + quarter; or (2) long + short + long as notes inegales; or (3) a quarter + quarter with a 'trembling' movement joining them. All three are equivalent, since the performance is identical. I believe the third is the Early Medieval theoretical viewpoint.
Given all of my above clarifications, I believe such a performance-practice is not only true but also harmonious with theoretical writings. I will touch on this more when I reply to your comments on Guido.
I do not see how you misread my argument, but I am in agreement with your position. I propose no such disturbance of the rhythm or meter by inserting semibreves or 2/3 or decimal breves with strictness.
I am namely discerning between the 'theoretical' note values and the 'actual' note values. Two longs in a rising interval joined by a grace should not result in a total duration of 2.25 beats. Rather they should remain as 2 beats, with the grace borrowing time from the long before it, so that the actual durations are, perhaps, 1.75, 0.25, and 1.
But, in the mind of the Early Medieval Theorist, what we see and hear as a grace note is more granular than the tempus, the time-unit, which is proportionally brevis in relation to everything else around it. As such, at a swift enough tempo the grace note's subminimal proportionality becomes less relevant, so that 1.66 + 0.34 + 1 and 1.85 + 0.15 + 1 are both perceived by the ear as interpretations approximately equal to 1.75 + 0.25 + 1, as long as the total duration of the first long and the grace are equal to 1. The notes can even still be perceived as being merely two longae of 1 + 1 duration, with the first longa being 'bent' or 'rolled' into the second by a vocal effect. That vocal effect is notated by a quilisma and is what Aurelian of Reome calls "volubilis accentus", a "rollable accent", with "inflexione tremula", "trembling inflection". The 'trembling' may then perhaps describe the first note's perceived instability of pitch steadiness.
As such, what we see as a 'thief note' with duration is seen by Early Medieval Theorists as an effect on another note, and not necessarily a note in and of itself, depending on the context. It is very important therefore to strive to see the music through the nomenclature and parameters of the first-millennium Musica theory as it is handed down to us in the Theorists' writings. If we do not, then we risk missing any patterns of cohesion and harmony between the theory and the practice.
Indeed. But it need not necessarily be found in every oral practice. The note is "superfluous" in that its absence does not affect the rhythm in any substantial way. It can be omitted, and the melody sounds the same. Because of this, its likelihood of being notated in a first written copy should be low. Hence, its appearance in multiple manuscripts of different traditions should raise our suspicion that the note may owe its inclusion therein more to the manuscript archetype than to the choir's tendencies.
If the primary or secondary purpose of these manuscripts were to be a certificate of legitimacy, a proof of conformity with holy tradition, then the scribe of these manuscripts has all the more reason to include the archetypal note in his copy, even if it was not sung in his church's choir.
I am not discounting the options you have proposed, Alasdair, but I suspect the one I have proposed may hold sway in many instances.
That said, I realize this is not a good example. The first D on "(Jerusa)lem" has an increased probability of presence in a manuscript, either copied or from scratch, because it is a leap from D to the G or A, and such fourth- or fifth-interval leaps at syllable breaks are usually notated with the low preceding grace note on the second syllable as a portamento of sorts. In that sense, we may say it is not so "superfluous" after all.
EDIT: I see what you mean about italics.
The website appears to be having problems with inputting italics.
I regard the first two notes of (salvasti) me in the gradual Exaltabo te as exemplifying syncopation.
I also regard the fifth and sixth notes of sum in the Laon 239 notation of the gradual In Deo speravit as exemplifying syncopation.
Then there are the first two notes at po(pulum) in the gradual Tu es Deus. A list of all such features would quite long.
Tenor uero id est ultimae uocis mora. qui in sillaba quantuluscumque est. amplior in parte. diutissimus uero in distinctione. signum in his diuisionis existit. Sicque opus est. ut quasi metricis pedibus cantilena plaudatur. et aliae uoces ab aliis morulam duplo longiorem uel duplo breuiorem. aut tremulam habeant. id est uarium tenorem. quem longum aliquotiens apposita litterae uirgula plana significat.
<The Latin words 'mora' and 'tenor' can mean 'any duration of time'. They do not imply length anymore than the question "How long is it?" implies no brevity. Hence, I would paraphrase this paragraph as follows:
The gender of the word qui has implications. The positioning of the words ultimae vocis in relation to the word mora has implications. It is not the mora but the hold qui, however small it is in a syllable, is larger in a part and longest in a distinction. This suggests to me either that the tenor can be either the duration of a syllable or of an entire line, or that the tenor can be the duration of the last pitch of a syllable or of a line. Secondly, the tenor is explained as the mora of the last note. The section tenor ... (id est, ultimae vocis mora) is not best paraphrased as "the duration of a neum-sign's last note" but as "the duration of the last note of a musical phrase or line". 'The duration of the last note' is not a concept applicable to the first note of Sciant gentes as far as I'm concerned, and the Commemoratio brevis seems only to recognise two durations of pitch, neither of which appears to apply to the first note of Sciant gentes.
<As such, the clause "which, whenever it is long, can be signified with a virgula plana" refers to the "tenor" in general, and not to the "tremula". Re-paraphrased:
I regard a "varium tenorem" as a category of "tenor" rather than a description of all such categories. The cases of the words quem and longum have implications that should not be downplayed without good justification. It is neither the "tenor" nor the "morulam ... tremulam" but the "varium tenorem" quem, via a plain stroke applied to a letter, signifies a longum.
<The "varium tenorem" can describe either the "tenor" in general or the "tremula", depending on how you read the sentence.>
The cases of morulam, tremulam and varium tenorem, and the use of the words id est, also have implications. Since the tenor is a mora, so both or either of the tremulam or morulam ... tremulam can be read as being a varium tenorem.
<If you subscribe to the second reading, wherein the "tremula" is the "varying tenor", then you must explain how it is varying.>
So if I say that the first note of the offertory Benedictus qui venit in Laon 239 is not a straightforward simple pitch, then I have to explain its unstraightforwardness?
<"Varius" cannot mean "either short or long", since the tremula, which Aurelian equates to the quilisma and grace note, is neither short, nor long, nor ever marked with an episema.>
It is perfectly reasonable to apply the word varius to the concept of change of duration from short to long. I would also refer you to the following examples from the Einsiedeln 121 notation of the offertory Ad te levavi as notated in p17 of the Graduale Triplex:-
In the example of Ego sum via from the Commemoratio brevis, the pitches on the syllables (vi)a, (vi)ta, (allelu)ia are held for longer.
g g g a'g f g f g a' c'd' d' d'c' c'b' g a' b' a' g g
E go sum vi - a ve ri tas et vi - ta Al - le - lu ia Al le lu ia
<Commemoratio Brevis says that "all notes are long or short, always one twice the duration of the other, no more, no less". Guido and Aurelian, however, have a threefold, not twofold, classification of note values:
The Micrologus can be read in such a way as to regard the tremula as existing in both long and short forms.
Tenor uero id est ultimae uocis mora. qui in sillaba quantuluscumque est. amplior in parte. diutissimus uero in distinctione. signum in his diuisionis existit. Sicque opus est. ut quasi metricis pedibus cantilena plaudatur. et aliae uoces ab aliis morulam duplo longiorem uel duplo breuiorem. aut tremulam habeant. id est uarium tenorem. quem longum aliquotiens apposita litterae uirgula plana significat.
<The Latin words 'mora' and 'tenor' can mean 'any duration of time'. They do not imply length anymore than the question "How long is it?" implies no brevity. Hence, I would paraphrase this paragraph as follows:
The gender of the word qui has implications. The positioning of the words ultimae vocis in relation to the word mora has implications. It is not the mora but the hold qui, however small it is in a syllable, is larger in a part and longest in a distinction. This suggests to me either that the tenor can be either the duration of a syllable or of an entire line, or that the tenor can be the duration of the last pitch of a syllable or of a line. Secondly, the tenor is explained as the mora of the last note. The section tenor ... (id est, ultimae vocis mora) is not best paraphrased as "the duration of a neum-sign's last note" but as "the duration of the last note of a musical phrase or line". 'The duration of the last note' is not a concept applicable to the first note of Sciant gentes as far as I'm concerned, and the Commemoratio brevis seems only to recognise two durations of pitch, neither of which appears to apply to the first note of Sciant gentes.
<As such, the clause "which, whenever it is long, can be signified with a virgula plana" refers to the "tenor" in general, and not to the "tremula". Re-paraphrased:
I regard a "varium tenorem" as a category of "tenor" rather than a description of all such categories. The cases of the words quem and longum have implications that should not be downplayed without good justification. It is neither the "tenor" nor the "morulam ... tremulam" but the "varium tenorem" quem, via a plain stroke applied to a letter, signifies a longum.
<The "varium tenorem" can describe either the "tenor" in general or the "tremula", depending on how you read the sentence.>
The cases of morulam, tremulam and varium tenorem, and the use of the words id est, also have implications. Since the tenor is a mora, so both or either of the tremulam or morulam ... tremulam can be read as being a varium tenorem.
<If you subscribe to the second reading, wherein the "tremula" is the "varying tenor", then you must explain how it is varying.>
So if I say that the first note of the offertory Benedictus qui venit in Laon 239 is not a straightforward simple pitch, then I have to explain its unstraightforwardness?
<"Varius" cannot mean "either short or long", since the tremula, which Aurelian equates to the quilisma and grace note, is neither short, nor long, nor ever marked with an episema.>
It is perfectly reasonable to apply the word varius to the concept of change of duration from short to long. I would also refer you to the following examples from the Einsiedeln 121 notation of the offertory Ad te levavi as notated in p17 of the Graduale Triplex:-
In the example of Ego sum via from the Commemoratio brevis, the pitches on the syllables (vi)a, (vi)ta, (allelu)ia are held for longer.
g g g a'g f g f g a' c'd' d' d'c' c'b' g a' b' a' g g
E go sum vi - a ve ri tas et vi - ta Al - le - lu ia Al le lu ia
<Commemoratio Brevis says that "all notes are long or short, always one twice the duration of the other, no more, no less". Guido and Aurelian, however, have a threefold, not twofold, classification of note values:
The Micrologus can be read in such a way as to regard the tremula as existing in both long and short forms.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 7 Next