MAJOR OBSTACLE to the proliferation of plainsong—in my humble opinion—has been a group I call the chant illuminati. They believe their special knowledge places them on a higher level than others. Singing the Church’s official edition (in the way intended by those who created it) is viewed by the chant illuminati as “unenlightened.” In their view, one who sings according to the VATICANA’S official rules of interpretation is basically an unsophisticated philistine who ought to be pitied.
Out Of Left Field • In a moment I’ll explain why I bring up the chant illuminati. But first let me share with you the ENTRANCE ANTIPHON for the feast of the Immaculate Conception (8 December). Yesterday, I created an organ accompaniment for it. This morning, I recorded myself singing it while simultaneously attempting to accompany myself on the pipe organ:
* PDF Download • Singer’s Score (Treble Clef)
* PDF Download • ORGAN ACCOMPANIMENT (2 Pages)
What I Mentioned Earlier • Earlier, I spoke of the chant illuminati, who look down upon those who aren’t as “enlightened” (in their view) when it comes to plainsong rhythm. One of the most enthusiastic members of the chant illuminati is without question Rev. Anthony Ruff, a student of Franz Karl Prassl (based in Graz, Austria) and professor at Saint John’s Abbey in Minnesota. In a 2012 publication called Canticum Novum, Ruff made the following declaration:
“Note that the more original melodic version as recently restored is often quite striking in its aesthetic superiority, and the emotional impact of the text comes to better expression.”
Imagine making such an assertion in public! For one thing, Ruff admits1 that the actual notes he selected for his edition are sometimes different than those indicated by these “aesthetically superior” (Ruff’s term) manuscripts which he favors. In other words, Ruff forcibly applies the “correct” (in his mind) rhythm to a melody with which it doesn’t correspond. That’s like saying: “We got the notes wrong, but don’t worry—the rhythm is correct.” It would be difficult to conceive of a more irresponsible approach.
But consider—one more time—Rev. Ruff’s statement:
“Note that the more original melodic version as recently restored is often quite striking in its aesthetic superiority, and the emotional impact of the text comes to better expression.”
What is Rev. Ruff talking about? Where can I go to hear these magnificent interpretations? Where can they be found? I’ve been involved in the Gregorian Chant world for almost 30 years—how is it possible that I have never heard these “aesthetically superior” interpretations? The so-called “semiological” performances I’ve heard have been (candidly) pretty appalling. Perhaps the finest attempt was by WILKO BROUWERS, an excellent conductor who’s active in Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary. But the rhythm adopted by Maestro Brouwers came across as jagged and haphazard. Or perhaps “unsettling” would be a better word. I personally believe plainsong should sound peaceful. I don’t believe it should come across as unsettling.
The Crux Of The Matter • I’ve spent the last 25 years carefully examining ancient plainsong manuscripts from sundry places. I’ve been blessed to study with fabulous teachers, including Dom Cardine’s former boss. Readers know that I have personally made available to the world extremely rare editions of plainsong: something like 45,000 pages in all. The books in our PDF library are cited by preëminent scholars all over the world. So what is the end result of all this?
I’ve come to believe that the members of the Vatican Commission on Gregorian Chant who supported its president were correct when they said the “archaeology and nothing else” cadre (which sought to undermine Pope Pius X’s restoration efforts) was wrong. And how were they wrong? They were wrong because they gave value only to a handful of manuscripts—for which they had a predilection—while ignoring or “explaining away” hundreds of ancient and important manuscripts. In other words, only 2-3 manuscripts mattered (in their view) while the rest of the Gregorian tradition was basically garbage that could be ignored. I feel such an approach is deeply flawed, but the chant illuminati still hold these views. Monsignor Francis P. Schmitt put it rather succinctly in 1988:
The original idea of Pothier (and of Pius X, who came down with a strong hand in his favor) and the Vatican Edition was to produce a practical service book for all the Church. Such a book is necessarily a compromise. But then, so is the Graduale Triplex inasmuch as it limits its interpretive [scope] to selected manuscripts.
I’m the first to admit that certain manuscripts are so insanely beautiful, clean, and complete they take one’s breath away. Bamberg6lit|905 would be one such example. But that doesn’t make it okay to jettison, ignore, or “explain away” the testimony of hundreds of other manuscripts which are incredibly important and ancient. Nor does it excuse scaring people away by using overly-esoteric descriptions which are the result of shaky assumptions based upon speculation. The manuscript tradition (now available for all to see thanks to the internet) demonstrates a miraculous trail of evidence going back 1,000 years with—broadly speaking—a mind-boggling one-to-one correspondence between adiastematic and diastematic testimonies. This one-to-one correspondence (“note-by-note”) is overwhelming, sensational, and momentous. Even today, no musicologist has been able to explain how such a tradition survived over the centuries when there were no telephones, no automobiles, no airplanes, no electricity, and no email.
Largest Stumbling Block • Many on the chant illuminati “team” don’t understand the relationship between diastematic and adiastematic notation. Here’s something I’ve learned over the last 25 years: it is absolutely pointless to argue with someone who doesn’t understand that relationship. You can explain matters for hours, patiently providing countless examples—but if they don’t understand how diastematic and adiastematic manuscripts interact, you’re wasting your breath.
(1 of 3) Conclusion • Growing up, there was a phrase we used: “Put up or shut up.” If the chant illuminati really do produce “aesthetically superior” (Ruff’s term) interpretations, they have an obligation to reveal them. I’ve certainly never come across them. Gregorian Chant is relatively simple—but when the chant illuminati claim (falsely) that each punctum can have 8-9 different “values” they scare away potential allies. And that’s unacceptable, because we church musicians have important work to do. I say again: Gregorian Chant is relatively simple. If only everyone could come to my church on Sunday and hear my (100% volunteer) choir singing plainsong. The results are so moving, it would make your heart weep! And we’ve only been at this a few months.
(2 of 3) Conclusion • I am not naïve. I realize certain members of the chant illuminati will never abandon their theories. This struck me in a powerful way recently when I was looking through introits for some modern feasts, such as the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (8 December). Its Introit was composed in the 19th century by Abbat Joseph Pothier. It’s a modern composition. (Some refer to such compositions as “Neo-Gregorian.”) The same is true vis-à-vis the Introit for the feast of Christ the King, a contemporary feast created in 1925. When it comes to publications by the chant illuminati, I notice they attempt to “correct” (!!!) Neo-Gregorian introits, including the two I just mentioned. Needless to say, such “correction” of modern compositions is absurd. This proves the chant illuminati are not interested in authenticity. By way of analogy, it would make no sense to “correct” a composition by Rachmaninoff using a manuscript by François Couperin.
(3 of 3) Conclusion • I mentioned that Abbat Pothier composed the Introit for the feast of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION (8 December). While Pothier composed hundreds of plainsong pieces, he is remembered for that composition more than any other. What’s remarkable is that Pothier died on 8 December. What are the odds of that?
1 Rev. Anthony Ruff himself was forced to admit, in reference to the plain-chant edition he created:
“The work of melodic restitution is based upon many early manuscripts. But the neumes above the staff in this collection come from only one manuscript. This is why the early neumes occasionally do not match the melody in cases where the restitution follows the early neumes in another manuscript.”
Rev. Ruff’s approach makes about as much sense as applying pedal markings from a Liszt piece to a composition by Johann Christian Bach.
