oopsorganist wrote:I have only skimmed this thread. I hope tis the right one to ask about the DVD our PP has bought called "Becoming the body and spirit of Christ" or something.
Yup. This is the right place.
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
oopsorganist wrote:I have only skimmed this thread. I hope tis the right one to ask about the DVD our PP has bought called "Becoming the body and spirit of Christ" or something.
musicus wrote:oopsorganist wrote:I have only skimmed this thread. I hope tis the right one to ask about the DVD our PP has bought called "Becoming the body and spirit of Christ" or something.
Yup. This is the right place.
quaeritor wrote:Interestingly (well, at least to me) we don't find "sanct -OOOO - OOOOS" nearly as objectionable as Ho - LEEE - EEEE, though it ought equally to be SANC - tus. Might that be just because we are not native Latin speakers and don't have an instinctive feel for the language? - Or is it perhaps due to that arcane (and only vaguely remembered) difference between the plainsong ictus and the "beat" as we would know it - the ictus being defined (in the introduction to the Liber Usualis, I seem to remember) as in some way an "up beat" rather than a "down beat". Perhaps some true expert in plainsong would care to comment. Either way, I think it illustrates the problem of trying to take advantage of a familiar "tune" to set a different text - (pace "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue" listeners) not only at the micro level of the syllables but at the higher level of the whole shape and emphasis of the phrases. Much better to have written a completely new "tune" allowing it to emerge and flow from the actual words being set.
Q
quaeritor wrote:. . and in the current example (I meant to add) is it not simply solved by singing "ho-ly" as "long - short- short" approximationg to "1-2, 3, 4" in a four beat measure?
(I am reminded of the Sans Day carol where the arty versions have "and the first tree in the greenwood it was the hol- LEE. Hol - LEEE, hol - LEEE. And the first . . .etc "(where Hol - LEE is beat (?beaten - ?beated) "3, 1-2, 3,1-2") but in the folk clubs it's "Hol - ly, (rest), Ho-ol ly" starting 1,2, 3-on-the-rest) (I trust I made that perfectly clear!)
Q
(edited to put double l in "holly" throughout"!)
Calum Cille wrote:Thank you for the welcome, musicus!
Calum Cille wrote:I mistakenly thought that we were discussing the beginning of Sanctus XVIII,
quaeritor wrote:Calum Cille wrote:I mistakenly thought that we were discussing the beginning of Sanctus XVIII,
That's what I had in mind. ("sanctus" definitely "short long-long" in my aged Liber. I'd better go back over the thread and see where the confusion has arisen - but not tonight, I fear.
Q
Calum Cille wrote:All the ICEL sets I've looked at give no indication of rhythmic durations such as longs or shorts.
quaeritor wrote: What are we supposed to do with these settings? - just wait to see what happens? leave it to a sort of "folk process"? Make our own "local rules"?
Q