In response to an inquirer, Fr. Augustine Thompson writes:
I would assume that this music is Cistercian Chant, not that of the Benedictine/Roman books as reconstructed in the early 1900s (Fontgombault) or later 1900s (some Solesmes recordings). This reconstruction was necessary because of the rewriting of all the Roman chant in the 1500s.Jeffrey Morse adds:
Like the Dominicans and Carthusians, the Cistercians have preserved their medieval music basicly intact up to the present. Each of these Orders has its own system of interpretation -- since none of our books have the "Solesmes marks" to indicate the rhythm.
For an example of how this works, go to "Dominican Liturgy" and read the explanation of the Dominican notation and method: http://dominican-liturgy.blogspo...05/ welcome.html
This will give you an idea of how our chant is read and executed.
All three traditions have inherited variants of the music you hear in Roman/Benedictine recordings. For example, the Dominican melody of the Veni Creator has two extra notes not in the Roman. Some of the propers and office responsories have much larger differences.
I haven't heard the CD yet but I am looking forward to it. In Cistercian Chant, one usually first notices the absence of the quilisma as well as the elimination of some of the repetitious melismas in the Graduals and Alleluias. The first generation of Cistercians wanting to regain a "pure" chant tradition, sent some monks to Metz where it was thought the Chant was less corrupt. Bringing back this Chant, they then rewrote what they found to fit more precisely modal theories. Some melodies of the Chant were changed quite dramatically, the "Christus Factus Est for example, which in the Roman books technically goes outside the mode on the word "crucis" (gloriously so!), was rewritten to stay within its mode by these Cistercians. Many repetitions in Chant were done away with in the spirit of monastic simplicity.
I am happy that these monks are preserving the particular Chant tradition of their monastic family, I only wish more orders with similar traditions would do the same, it so enriches the Church and its musical heritage.
To which Fr. Thompson writes:
Fascinating. We Dominicans don't have the quilisma either; and a number of our chants were rewritten to "correct" the modality. It is my understanding that the principles used were similar to those used by the Cistercians--and that Cistercian chant served as models in some cases.
I would very much like to promote the use of our chant, but sadly, there is often considerable pressure from music directors and instructors to impose Roman music sung the "Solesmes" way. It even happens in our houses of study.
Jeffrey Morse:
Fr Augustine, how well I admire all the work you are doing for Dominican Chant, I have been much impressed by your posts. Yes, I knew that Cistercian and Dominican Chant have much in common, especially in regards the quilisma and the re-ordering of melodies to fit modal theories, but didn't want my post to be too long! It is so vitally important for the Dominicans to keep their Chant as it is a precious family legacy and is a true link to your holy founder and the first generations of Dominicans. Knowing this, I couldn't imagine Dominicans wanting to do anything else!
In particular, the rhythmic traditions must be kept and taught. Horizontal episemas and and especially the ictus are of course not found in the Dominican and Cistercian Chant tradition (to name just two Chant families), and there is a reason-they weren't needed.
Fr. Thompson notes that " a very important dissertation (never published) was done on the theory and practice of the Reform of the Dominican Chant":
It is: Robert B. Haller, Early Dominican Mass Chants: a Witness to 13th-century Chant Style (Ph.D, Catholic Univ. of America 1986).UMI :: Dissertation Express
It has a good amount on the SOCist reforms as well. YOu should be able to get a copy through Univ of Mich. dissertation microfilms. (you can order in film or printed)
No comments:
Post a Comment