Dear friends:
I have found this paper interesting but I would like to know your opinion about it. It's about rhythm in gregorian chant by John Blackley. I am sure you are just familiar with it.
http://www.scholaantiqua.net/pdfs/RhythmBeforeMid-Twelfth.pdf
Thank you so much.
Replies
Mr Ricossa,
It is key that the Laon episematic virga / tractulus used for one pitch syllables has its alternative in a punctum being used for one pitch syllables, and that there is a similar pairing of alternatives in Einsiedeln with the virga and the virga marked celeriter, and at similar places. I can see no logical reason to opt to form a general equivalence out of the duration of the Laon episematic virga / tractulus and the Einsiedeln virga marked celeriter.
With regard to the doubling of the syllabic duration, I note from the Commemoratio brevis that the duration of the basic long note is relative to genre, so that the basic longs of one pitch syllables in psalm verses appear have a shorter duration than the basic longs of one note syllables in Gospel canticles.
Repetitio antiphonarum, quae in fine versuum inter cantandum fit, eadem qua psalmus celeritate percurrat: porro finito psalmo legitima productione producatur duplo dumtaxat longius: excepto dum cantica evangelica sic morose psalluntur, ut non longiori, sed eadem morositate, antiphonam subsequi oporteat.
Congratulations to R John Blackley who has just enjoyed his 79th birthday.
Mr Ricossa,
Despite Mr Weber's claims - however he chooses to phrase them - regarding R John Blackley, I remember Nick Sandon once commenting in a lecture that "in a way, we are all proportionalists now". Oscar Mascarenas certainly used to teach his students to lengthen every squared pes and shorten every round pes. The only real disagreement I had with him with regard to proportions was over performing single pitches on single syllables to the same duration as one half of a round pes rather than to the same duration as one half of a squared pes. The singing of all syllables of one pitch short, introduced a seemingly unnecessary inconsistency in interpretating the length of the Laon tractulus / episematic virga in neumatic chants. It also had the (to me) undesirable effect of making too short the duration of syllables with primary verbal stress which meant that they were repeatedly de-emphasised in relation to unstressed syllables or those of lesser stress.
Another problem with nuanced equalism is that, in Einsiedeln 121, the syllables of one pitch in the Mass psalm tones are almost exclusively assigned a plain virga rather than an episematic one. If the notation is supposed to be so sensitive to the effect of syllables on singing, why are episemas not liberally sprinkled all over the psalm tones in Einsiedeln 121? The terminations likewise ride roughshod over verbal considerations.
Yet another problem which Einsiedeln 121 highlights is the contrast between the overwhelming use of the plain virga in the notation of syllables of one pitch in, for example, introit antiphons. This has to be contrasted with a quite different set of statistics for the relatively frequent use in Einsiedeln 121 of both the plain clivis and the episematic clivis which partners up statistically with two long notes in Laon 239.
Why is it that the letter C on a clivis doesn't pair up with an episema on the first pitch? Don't these syllables ever get verbal stress like the syllables with a long clivis? How can shortening durations across the board reduce verbal stress? Furthermore, why do so many, many virgas associated with syllables of one pitch in Einsiedeln 121 not take an episema? Why isn't the episema more liberally sprinkled around the virgas? It just doesn't make sense to view the episema in Einsiedeln 121 primarily as a musical reflection of a verbal event rather than as a simple marker of pitch lengthening.
Mr Weber,
I note that there is no forthcoming substantiation on your part of the statements of yours about me which I have drawn attention to, and that there is no forthcoming clarification on your part of the points I have requested clarification on.
I note that you view my requests for clarification of your opinions and rebuttals of your statements about me as "challenges". I leave the third party reader to take from that what they will.
I would disagree that the phenomenon of a single approach offering various interpretations of the same chants in performance is not precisely the same phenomenon as yet another single approach offering various interpretations of the same chants in performance. For example, there are various traditions within Islam and there are various traditions within Judaism. Besides being two different religions, they share this easily recognisable feature of possessing various traditions within themselves.
I would not therefore conflate, to take another example, the concept of the offering of various interpretations within one school of discipline and the concept of offering of distinctly different schools of discipline. It is to state the obvious that semiologists and proportionalists differ in approach. However, they do not differ in that, within each approach, various interpretations have been historical developed and presented, ie, various interpretations within semiology mirrors the fact that there are various interpretations within proprtionalism.
Mr Codona, "precisely the same thing" is not at all the case. Proportionalists interpret the same medieval theorists and draw diametrically opposite conclusions, as Apel pointed out in 1958. Semiologists interpret the pitches of the neumes differently, as anyone who knows the melodic vagueness of neumes will understand. Please forgive me for passing over the various challenges that you continue to insist on making.
Mr Ricossa,
Thank you for that link. I always find it curious for various semiologists to be offering various interpretations of the same chants in performance and then criticising proportionalists for variously doing precisely the same thing. When it comes to performance, musicologists surely all face similar problems with the practical interpretation of these texts in that one must always theorise about the length of durations.
Mr Weber,
I would remain unaltered in my view that geocentrism is a valid point to raise as an example in connection with any possible issue of intellectual isolation. It seems to me an obvious historical example to illustrate the point. You seem to view this example illustrating a point as being a point itself. Perhaps you would clarify whether or not you do in fact see my example as a point in itself rather than as an illustration of the point I wished your clarification on? As I still await a clear yea or nay to my earlier question on that point, namely, "perhaps you could clarify whether or not you are claiming that a question asking you to clarify your views on Mr Blackley's intellectual position is introducing an irrelevant topic or not?"
I also still await a clear yea or nay to my earlier question, "Perhaps you could also clarify whether or not you are claiming that my discussion of the quality of any majority scholarly view is introducing an irrelevant topic or not ..."
I also see that you have not retracted your assertion that I have put words in your mouth.
I further see that you take it as a given that I am, as you put it, "unfamiliar with the lengthy exchanges between Dr Berry and Blackley in Gramophone, and myself and Blackley in Fanfare." I would like to know the grounds on which you base this assumption on what I have or have not read prior to my last message to you.
I would also like to know the grounds on which you assert that I miss your point "that rhythm was indeed a major point of dissension from c.1900 to c.1950, summed up by Wiilli Apel in *Gregorian Chant* (1958)."
Thank you for your historical summary.
The irrelevant point you made was the reference to geocentrism.
Blackley's poor scholarship is evident in his singing of the Sanctus X in proportional rhythm; that chant did not exist in the period he is discussing and purportedly recording from Laon 239, as Mary Berry pointed out. To this, his response was that "three scholars he consulted" did not know that Sanctus X was put together for the Liber Gradualis (1895), a fact that Dr Berry considered obvious.
I regret that you are unfamiliar with the lengthy exchanges between Dr Berry and Blackley in Gramophone, and myself and Blackley in Fanfare. My reviews of all his recordings (three LPs and the L'Oiseau-Lyre CDs) were generous, giving him ample praise for presenting his point of view effectively but refuting numerous claims that he made in his notes.
You miss my point that rhythm was indeed a major point of dissension from c.1900 to c.1950, summed up by Wiilli Apel in *Gregorian Chant* (1958). He compared Pothier and Mocquereau (approaches opposite to each other) with eight mensuralists, admitted that the eight interpreted the same medieval theorists in diametrically conflicting ways, and concluded that *they* must be right without saying which of the eight he meant.
But, after Staeblein's paper on Old Roman MSS in 1950, the new subject of dispute was the relation between the so-called Old Roman MSS and the Frankish (so-called Gregorian) repertoire that survived in use. This resulted in a lively discussion of oral vs. written transmission of chant.
The next area of discussion was semiology, followed by the widespread split in performance practice between followers of Cardine and adherents of the Mocquereau/Gajard method (evident on hundreds of records). In the meantime, only Murray continued to discuss the last of the mensuralists, Vollaerts, who died in 1956 and was published in 1958, until Blackley began to record proportional (mensuralist) interpretations. He has not recorded since May 1987.
Mr Weber, in your last message, you wrote the following.
"I did not write "intellectual isolation" "
"You put words in my mouth".
I reject your assertion that I have put words in your mouth as I did not write stating that you wrote the words "intellectual isolation". Please note the following words of mine, describing how one might respond to your words. "FROM THESE REMARKS, ONE MIGHT UNDERSTAND that you view Blackley as intellectually isolated. ONE MIGHT ALSO UNDERSTAND FROM THESE REMARKS that you view his arguments for mensuralism as being observably false on the grounds not of the quality of his arguments but of his intellectual isolation.
I have therefore put no words in your mouth. On the contrary, I have made an observation to you about how your words may be interpreted or misinterpreted by another person. The words from your mouth, as it were, were clearly marked in inverted comments in my last message, and all other words of mine are asking you for clarification of your views (not dictating your views to you) or are points that I have raised in connection with the reliability of a majority scholarly view of observable evidence, both as a general question and as a specific question in relation to mensuralism.
Mr Weber, perhaps you could clarify whether or not you are claiming that a question asking you to clarify your views on Mr Blackley's intellectual position is introducing an irrelevant topic or not? You did, after all, of course, write for all to read: "My ultimate point was that he is the only one adhering to mensuralist theory, while the whole field of chant scholarship has moved on to such areas as semiology, oral tradition and the sources of the chants." The use of such words as "he is the only one adhering to ... theory" would usually, in the English language, seem to me to invite fairly an interpretation that the person being discussed is on his own as a single individual amongst his contemporaries and therefore isolated (ie, apart from others) in his theoretical (and therefore intellectual) views. It seems to me that the words of yours that I have just quoted (particularly "only" and "theoretical") render my query to you quite justifiable.
Perhaps you could also clarify whether or not you are claiming that my discussion of the quality of any majority scholarly view is introducing an irrelevant topic or not, given that you raised the question of the scholarly reliability of Mr Blackley's views and his status as an "only one", which would seem to me to attempt to place him, obviously, in a minority of one? After all, of course, you did write, “Blackley is a poor scholar”, which words seem to me to render quite justifiable this query of mine to you concerning quality of scholarship.
You put words in my mouth, attribute ideas to me that never occurred to me, introduce irrelevant topics. I did not write "intellectual isolation." I simply pointed out that Blackley alone has been pursuing the theories of Vollaerts as defended by Murray, writing on his own website, while scores of scholars have turned their attention from a subject that was widely discussed in the first half of the 20c to several other areas of research that I identified, publishing their conclusions in peer-reviewed journals and presenting them at international conferences. It is not a question of his isolation but of his interest in a subject that scholars no longer discuss because they are more interested in other areas of research.
I also quoted refutations of his writings by such respected academics as the late Dr. Mary Berry. It was a minor demonstration of his lack of scholarship that she exposed in showing that the proportional rhythm in his recording of Sanctus X was not 10c. chant because Dom Pothier assembled the chant of Sanctus X for his Liber Gradualis. Notice that Blackley's blithe response was that it could have been sung that way.
My original post simply replied to an inquiry titled "Paper Blackley." I did not claim to know all the answers to every question.
Mr Weber, you have written the following.
"My ultimate point was that he [Blackley] is the only one adhering to mensuralist theory, while the whole field of chant scholarship has moved on to such areas as semiology, oral tradition and the sources of the chants. No one bothers with the question."
"He writes on his own website, while chant scholars write in respected journals and books of oral tradition, semiology and such issues, but ignore mensuralism entirely."
"For one thing, in saying that semiology has been a major point of discussion among chant scholars, I was not defending it at all. The discussion has been diverse, and your comments simply reinforce my point that scholars are discussing that subject rather than mensuralism."
"I made the point that in the span of time Blackley was writing, no one was even mentioning rhythmic theories in peer-reviewed journals."
From these remarks, one might understand that you view Blackley as intellectually isolated. One might also understand from these remarks that you view his arguments for mensuralism as being observably false on the grounds not of the quality of his arguments but of his intellectual isolation.
That would be a non sequitur. An obvious historical example of the falsity of such logic would be the historical rejection by scholars of heliocentrism in favour of geocentrism. (Aristarchos is related to have believed - in the 3rd century BC - that the Earth revolved around the Sun. His theory was, following Aristoteles and Ptolemaios, rejected by the majority of scholars up until the time of Copernicus in the 16th century AD. To state the obvious, that is a long time for the majority of scholars to be so fundamentally wrong.)
Mr Weber, perhaps you would clarify whether or not you are claiming that Mr Blackley's arguments for mensuralism are demonstrably false on the mere grounds that he is intellectually isolated?
I would also question you on whether you not you consider yourself as knowing the meaning in application of the letter T in Laon 239 because, I for one, have the humility to assert that I can prove nothing to myself regarding the meaning in practice of that letter at the time of writing of the manuscript I mention and, if I were to regard it as an instruction to hold a note, I would have to question, for example, whether or not this would refer to holding a pitch steady for its duration, or refer to extending the duration of the pitch and, if the latter, I would have to question the relative length of such an extension of duration and I don't believe I could ever actually disprove anyone's conjecture regarding the precise relative length of such an extension if I lacked the corroborative evidence necessary to do that. The corroborative evidence I possess is that of comparative analysis with similar manuscripts and - very importantly - the relevant latin theoretical writings Mr Ricossa refers to above which deal with the rhythm of liturgical chant.
These are my authorities - neither Aristarchos, nor Aristoteles, as it were - neither Vollaerts nor Cardine. These are the questions I consider more pertinent and useful for logical debate of such matters, not who is in the scholarly minority or majority, but which party is right and which is wrong, and why so.
And I would point out that the musical notations of psalm tone terminations in Einsiedeln 121 possess a regularity of neumatic form which - apart from liquescence - can be validly characterised as being unaffected by changes in verbal stress and the internal phonetic construction of syllables; and I would question you on why this should be the case in that manuscript.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next