ODAY’S ARTICLE is bipartite. The first section releases VOLUME ONE of the Nova Organi Harmonia Ad Graduale Juxta Editionem Vaticanam (Mechlin: Lemmensinstituut, 1942) professionally-scanned by Corpus Christi Watershed for the first time in history! The second section contains responses to questions submitted by Mr. Frederes. REMINDER: “Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.”
Exciting Release! • Just in time for the holy season of Advent, we release the first volume of the NOH. Our popular NOH website uses xerox copies I made in the 1990s. A college professor allowed me to borrow his complete set if I promised to return them within 24 hours. He said I could copy them if I agreed to “cut the pages.” [Once upon a time, European books were sold with “uncut” pages.] So I stayed up all night cutting—and then speedily xerox copying—2,279 pages of Gregorian accompaniments, but the quality was unsatisfactory since this took place more than twenty years ago. That’s why I think you’ll appreciate this professionally scanned version:
* PDF Download • VOLUME 1 (Professional Scan)
—Nova Organi Harmonia • Flor Peeters & Julius Van Nuffel • Published 18 May 1942.
Can you see the improvement?
For months, I’ve been telling you about Guillaume Couture Gregorian Chant. That’s an edition based on the official rhythm (a.k.a. “pure” Editio Vaticana). The official rhythm is what’s found in publications by the Vatican Press, Dessain, Schwann, Monsignor Nekes, Styria, Procure générale de musique religieuse, Lecoffre & Lethielleux, Œuvre St-Canisius, Friedrich Pustet, Coppenrath, and so forth. The books by Désclee were published in two versions: one with added signs, one without added signs. For instance, Desclée published a beautiful 1908 GRADUALE ROMANUM without any of Dom Mocquereau’s signs. [A friend in Australia promises to mail it, so we can have it scanned.] The NOH uses the official rhythm. You can download the unfinished draft of GUILLAUME COUTURE GREGORIAN CHANT as a PDF file:
* PDF Download • GUILLAUME COUTURE (69 pages)
—We need proofreaders; can you help? • This is a draft copy.
Andrew Hinkley’s Project • We will soon release a professionally-scanned version of NOH volume 6. If anyone has volume 2, volume 3, volume 4, volume 5, volume 7, or volume 8 please consider loaning them to us so we can scan them. I obtained several volumes, but mine were stolen by a mentally-ill person. (It’s a long story.) By the way, Mr. Andrew Hinkley is currently transcribing the entire NOH into a musical notation program. Download Credo III if you want to get a taste of the fabulous journey he’s embarked upon.
Matthew Frederes • Let’s now address the pertinent questions Mr. Matthew Frederes asked me on 10 November 2022. It’s difficult to know where I should begin. I want to avoid ‘spewing out’ tons of information in a haphazard way. Let’s start with where the rhythmic signs came from. Dom Combe claims there was a “tacit agreement” made privately (23 March 1904) between Pope Pius X and Dom Mocquereau regarding the rhythmic signs. Mr. Frederes, you know there are two types of rhythmica. Some rhythmic signs (the ictus markings) do not modify the official rhythm. They’re harmless. They exist in order to help singers follow the conductor. On the other hand, many of Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic signs contradict the official edition. His so-called episemata elongate notes that aren’t supposed to be lengthened. Dom Mocquereau also omits pauses required by the notation of the official edition.
Getting Down To Brass Tacks • Mr. Frederes, you know that Papal audiences are usually rushed. When it comes to that 23 March 1904 meeting, do you think it was likely that Dom Mocquereau told Pope Pius X: “I intend to add thousands of rhythmic markings which will contradict the official rhythm.” Or, Mr. Frederes, is it more likely Dom Mocquereau asked His Holiness whether he can add some extra markings to help the singers follow the conductor? Of course, we can never know what really happened—because there’s no record of it—but I submit to you the latter scenario is significantly more plausible.
Not Jeff! Not Jeff! • Abbat Pothier published the Gregorian books at Solesmes Abbey in the 19th century. The NOH was created during WW2. I was born in the 1980s. I don’t understand why people accuse me—when I take seriously the instructions of the 1908 GRADUALE ROMANUM—of creating “my own method.” This is the method of Joseph Gogniat, which he learned from Dr. Peter Wagner. This is the method of Abbat Pothier, who was dubbed by Father Angelo de Santi “master of us all.” This is the method of the great Flor Peeters. This is the method of Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt. This is the method of the Vatican Polyglot Press, Mechlin, Styria, Schwann, Procure générale de musique religieuse, Lecoffre & Lethielleux, Œuvre St-Canisius, Friedrich Pustet, Coppenrath, and so on. Indeed, this is the method of the 1908 Desclée GRADUALE ROMANUM—although another version was also published which contained rhythmica. On 29 June 1906, the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, told the Lethielleux publishers (in a document) that Pope Pius X: “had words of praise for publications of this character which, in not presenting any sort of additions, are in true conformity with the aforenamed Vatican Edition.” Indeed, in 1961, the Abbey of Solesmes dubbed the “pure” Editio Vaticana rules “wise counsels”—although during the 2022 Sacred Music Symposium, my colleague Professor Weaver admitted this was somewhat disingenuous. (I was in the front row during his presentation; if memory serves, he called it ‘disingenuous.’)
Don’t Shoot The Messenger • My intention is not to condemn anyone’s performance of Gregorian Chant. On the other hand, I hope nobody will condemn me for sharing documents that have been public (and vigorously discussed) for 100+ years. I teach my choirs the official rhythm of the Catholic Church, and nobody should accuse us of singing according to a peculiar, bizarre, or idiosyncratic method. On the contrary, it seems to me that those who do not adhere to the official rhythm should provide their reasons for doing so. What’s so terrible about the official rhythm? It’s both beautiful and natural. I do not wish to be attacked for acknowledging the existence of documents such as this:
Condemn? How Exactly? • How can I condemn anyone else for their performance of Cantus Gregorianus in today’s environment? On 20 November 2012, the USCCB declared in writing that all music is automatically approved for liturgical worship by “tacit approval”—even in cases where the song lyrics were written by a Buddhist, a Protestant, or an atheist. The USCCB said this despite explicit GIRM directives as well as clear statements from the Vatican. When pressed, they refused to back down. Indeed, they doubled down! How can a bishop give “tacit approval” to a song he’s never heard, never examined, never approved, and doesn’t know exists? It makes no sense; but what can we do? If you read some of the explicit Vatican statements vis-à-vis rhythmica, who will deny they’re confusing and self-contradictory? How can the rhythmica be “not condemned” yet “not given approbation”—what does that mean? As Monsignor Skeris would say, with his unforgettable grin, such pronouncements are “rather vague and inconclusive…”
“Dubia” by Father David Pietras • You dwell upon a “dubia” submitted to Rome by Father David Pietras, a Polish priest. Both letters can be downloaded here. I would remind you, Mr. Frederes, that when such dubia are submitted, the answers from Rome—canonically speaking—apply only to the person asking the questions. But let us consider the 24th (!) question by Father David Pietras:
Question 24: During the Mass, in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, Gregorian chants performed using a different method than the Solezmian method provided for by the Graduale Romanum (1961) are acceptable? In particular: (1) the semiological method of Eugene Cardine’s house (eng. Semiology, “Gregorian’s Semiology”; House Eugene Cardine); (2) singing method by Marcel Peres (vocal technique based on eastern {especially Croatian} practice used widely by Marcel Peres and his students); (3) using Graduale Romanum 1908, omitting rules and regulations regarding the technique of singing the Gregorian chant prescribed in the Graduale Romanum 1961.
Ecclesia Dei Response: “Affirmative.”
Mr. Frederes, there’s an old saying: Play silly games, win silly prizes. As far as I can tell, the question is garbled and self-contradictory. For example, Father Pietras seems to ask (cf. 3rd section) whether it is permitted (!) to sing from the 1908 Gradual. He seems unaware the 1908 Gradual is the Church’s official edition! The ineptitude of Father Pietras’s question makes it hard to answer. For instance, the 1908 Gradual reproduces the Editio Vaticana. The 1961 Gradual also reproduces the Editio Vaticana. The famous Vaticana PREFACE is printed in all the 1908 books. It’s also printed in the 1961 book: the very book he cites! Moreover, many publishers printed the Editio Vaticana: Schwann, Styria, Desclée, Mechlin, Pustet, and so on. Indeed, Desclée even printed a Gradual in 1908 without Dom Mocquereau’s rhythmic signs! And the “Solezmian method” he talks about—what does that reference? Does he mean harmless items, such as the ictus? Or does he mean markings which explicitly contradict the official rhythm? Was Father Pietras trying to get Rome to condemn so-called semiology? Or was Father Pietras attempting to determine whether Rome authorizes so-called semiology? I have no idea what he was trying to ask.
Wrapping It Up • My time has expired. Let me conclude by saying that I have changed my mind about whether we can introduce the “pure” Editio Vaticana. My choir members love it! Because of how natural it is, they sound incredible when they use the official rhythm. Mr. Frederes, you say you never want to “re-learn” another chant method. But the official edition is not that different! For example, the entire KYRIALE only contains a handful of instances of the melismatic morae vocis. When say “a handful,” I literally mean 3-4 instances in the entire thing! I beg you, Mr. Frederes: listen to the Introit for this coming Sunday. Do you see how similar the official rhythm is to what you already know? Furthermore, once you sing the official edition with a congregation there’s no turning back. The version by Dom Mocquereau (which is technically illicit) seems so heavy, so fussy, and so slow. I will close with an example that hopefully illustrates this:
