Easter Alleluia

[NorthernTenor]

Actually, Paul, I have, where I suggest to FT that the feminine ending of G-A on end-ed better fits the English, which the rising tone and serves to accentuate. If anything, this is less likely to lead to '-ed' being over-stressed than A-A.

[contrabordun]

No you haven't: unless I've missed something, the only thing you've actually written was this

The move from G to A at that point no more militates against a feminine ending than the opening of the ICEL Sanctus requires us to place a stress on the 2nd note - no-one with an ounce of musicianship or experience of chant would do either.

(which is to dispute that it's poor, not to suggest that the alternative is not better).

However, you have now, so at least I understand your argument. Have to say I disagree.

Compare it with the setting of the next word: "alleluia". I believe that the desirable stressing of "ended" is similar to that of "lu-ia".
In the case of alleluia, this stress is nicely delivered by the setting of two notes (G-A, slurred) on "lu". On your argument,
G-F-G-A
al-le-lu-ia
would produce a perfectly musical effect given an ounce of musicianship and some knowledge of chant

[NorthernTenor]

Well Ian, I also have experience of English chant - many years of choral evensong. That really is vernacular chant, where the shape of the music springs from the shape of the language. And I have a lifetime of Latin chant (man and boy) again, where the music springs from the language. My problems start when you put a musical top hat on a linguistic monkey. Both are totally laudable in themselves, but the combination doesn't always work terribly well. The Englishing of Latin chant actually has its birth in a Victorian Anglican movement based on a massive theological agenda where liturgy was a means to prove an ecclesiological point, as I am sure you are aware.
So please, no more talk of agendas.

Alan,

Two-note feminine phrase endings occur regularly in Anglican psalmody - that's one of the reasons why I have no problem with them in English gregorian settings and nor, given your experience, should you. As for syllabic English chant being "a musical top hat on a linguistic monkey" - It’s a good sound bite, but surely lacks substance. You make no distinction between simple, syllabic English chant that goes back considerably further in the Church of England than Palmer, and melismatic settings, which do raise a number of issues of judgement, but which we’re not considering here.

And as for agendas – they are there, they can sometimes be observed on this board, and when the reasons given for not wanting something that works don’t stack up in detail, or are generalisations, then it is reasonable to consider motivation or lack of experience as explanations.

[alan29]

Well Ian, I also have experience of English chant - many years of choral evensong. That really is vernacular chant, where the shape of the music springs from the shape of the language. And I have a lifetime of Latin chant (man and boy) again, where the music springs from the language. My problems start when you put a musical top hat on a linguistic monkey. Both are totally laudable in themselves, but the combination doesn't always work terribly well. The Englishing of Latin chant actually has its birth in a Victorian Anglican movement based on a massive theological agenda where liturgy was a means to prove an ecclesiological point, as I am sure you are aware.
So please, no more talk of agendas.

Alan,

Two-note feminine phrase endings occur regularly in Anglican psalmody - that's one of the reasons why I have no problem with them in English gregorian settings and nor, given your experience, should you. As for syllabic English chant being "a musical top hat on a linguistic monkey" - It’s a good sound bite, but surely lacks substance. You make no distinction between simple, syllabic English chant that goes back considerably further in the Church of England than Palmer, and melismatic settings, which do raise a number of issues of judgement, but which we’re not considering here.

And as for agendas – they are there, they can sometimes be observed on this board, and when the reasons given for not wanting something that works don’t stack up in detail, or are generalisations, then it is reasonable to consider motivation or lack of experience as explanations.

BIB - good point, well made. Surely in a simple syllabic chant there should be no need at all for bear traps - and if anything had the whiff of an agenda that does. However, I am a sunny soul and have no wish to look for agenda (well, not at least until I have solved the mystery of the grassy knoll. )

[NorthernTenor]

Actually, Paul, a better illustration of my positive argument for the rising tone would have been:

This is a natural and obvious thing to do in syllabic chant, which goes with the flow of the natural word stress, and the rising tone serves to accentuate it.

I’m glad you’ve questioned the form of the following ‘alleluia’ setting, partly because it shows you’re thinking further about the issue than others appear to be (even if partly for polemical reasons), but also because I believe the answer to your question supports the direction of my argument. The difference between the settings of the two words has to do with their vowel and consonant placing, length and context. The consonant that ends the first syllable of ‘end-ed’ shifts towards the second if the second is prolonged by the addition of another note, and that does put the stress in the wrong place. A prolongation of the third syllable of ‘al-le-lu-ia’ is required to reflect the word’s natural speech-stress. This could be achieved by a long, but coming immediately after two shorts that would be precipitate for its position within the sentence (contrast this with the concluding character of the two longs that end the final alleluia). There is also an effective building up of prolongation over the sentence’s four cadences: a single note for ‘forth’; two and a rising figure at ‘ended’; three and a rising figure for ‘lu-ia’, which it itself a prolongation of the ‘ended’ figure; and a melismatic final ‘alleluia’. This works together with and is reinforced by the successively greater pauses between the phrases, beginning with the merest hesitation after ‘forth’ and extending to a half-bar line before the final ‘alleluia’.

Well, you did ask

[NorthernTenor]

Alan,

There is no bear trap. Those who are careless with what they chant will always make mistakes. To follow your argument to its conclusion one would only ask priests to sing to a single tone, because a very few have difficulty with melody (though I don't know about you, I find this oddly difficult if chanting the 'Our Father' so at Evensong - there's something strangely hypnotic about it that makes it difficult for me to concentrate). That really would be lowest common denominator stuff - suitable for the unfortunate few, but very much a long-stop. BTW - I know what you mean about the grassy knoll. There were so many conspiracies back then: the knoll, Roswell, the Consilium ...

[contrabordun]

(even if partly for polemical reasons)

Ian, this comment makes me the third contributor to this one thread to take offence at your inability (or unwillingness) to accept that their views are presented with no agenda beyond the enjoyment of a good argument and the increase of their own knowledge and understanding by learning from others.

Well, you did ask

I did. I think we've been talking at cross purposes.

The consonant that ends the first syllable of ‘end-ed’ shifts towards the second if the second is prolonged by the addition of another note, and that does put the stress in the wrong place.

I disagree with your analysis of "end-ed". I think it is said and sung as "en"+"ded", with a stress on the "en" (appen as ow it mebbe different in t'narth), and I think that setting it as a slurred G-A on the "en" moving to A for "ded" gives the most natural word setting. (I also think you misunderstood how I intended to divide the notes between the syllables).