Mocqurray

[Calum Cille]

I don't think it helps the debate to call people names.

I don't think it helps the debate to say that I have called anyone names when I have not. Neither do I think it helps any debate to outline information concerning other people without naming them, which is what you are wont to do, so I would rather call people by their names. Dom André Mocquereau was his name. Neither Mocquereaunics nor tomfoolery are name-calling as I address no one with the term.

Mocquereaunics is a pejorative and furthermore inaccurate shorthand jibe at people who hold no brief for Dom André but are interested in the history and performance of Gregorian chant.

How would you know? You've never heard the word before. You got all that from one word? How can it be a 'jibe at people', plural? It can only be a jibe at Mocquereau's theory.

(2) However, if we are to use accompaniment, it makes perfectly good sense to use the Solesmes principles of accompaniment, given that we are using the chant as edited by Solesmes. If we were using a different kind of edition, then accompanimental practice could certainly be different.

It does not make sense to move the harmony on '-di' rather than 'mun-' as you proposed in such a haughty manner. Solesmes could produce an equalist edition of Ticket to Ride and it still wouldn't make Mocquereau's theory make sense as far as when to change chords is concerned.

(3) It seems clear that you do not accept the tension between verbal and musical accents which is such a feature of the Solesmes school of chant and which lends it its unique character because you do not understand it.

Why is that clear? It may be in your best interests not to waste your time with an answer to that question, because you have no proof. I understand it well enough to know that it is preposterous nonsense in the form in which Dom Mocquereau applied it to the repertoire in the Solesmes publications.

(4) This 'theory' is not attributable to Dom Mocquereau alone by any means, and it is quite unfair to caricature it as such. It actually began with Dom Pothier in the 19th century and has continued down the line of Solesmes chant scholars ever since.

Ever since? I refer you to p12 of the article quoted by John Ainslie. Plus précisément, cette théorie rythmique, dans la mesure où elle inflige une distorsion rythmique aux mots et aux phrases chantées, apparaît en contradiction avec les principes élémentaires de composition de la musique liturgique, qui repose fondamentalement sur le service du texte sacré. Dom J H Desrocquettes attributed the development of the theory to Dom Mocquereau, as does Katherine Bergeron.

(5) Dom Gregory Murray was a genius, but like many geniuses he was also an eccentric.

Is this name-calling - "eccentric!" - an attempt to discredit his mental acumen?

He changed horses in midstream several times in his life.

Is this another attempt to discredit his critical faculties?

What he thought in 1947 he later completely repudiated, as a matter of fact.

I refer you to my previous comment, "Dom Murray sagely jettisoned Mocquereaunics when presented with real evidence for how Gregorian rhythm worked."

Have you read the later writings, in which he said he was completely mistaken?

I refer you to my previous comment, "Dom Murray sagely jettisoned Mocquereaunics when presented with real evidence for how Gregorian rhythm worked."

Later still, he claimed that actually he did not know what he thought about any of this.

And your evidence is ...

I had several conversations with him on this very topic.

If you say so.

In the course of his repudiations, by the way, he comprehensively debunked Vollaerts, whose book makes very strange reading today.

In the course of his repudiations, Dom Murray debunked Mocquereau and advocated Vollaerts. Perhaps you could furnish us with the source for your assertion that he debunked Vollaerts. Vollaerts' posthumous publication was ground-breaking work which ultimately led to a major change in the perception of the most ancient Gregorian notation in the academic world. Obviously, one doesn't have to agree with every conclusion - one could call this early work - but the general thesis is accepted as far as the academic community is concerned, ie, the chant was essentially proportionalist as per the descriptions of the ancient Latin authorities on chant.

(6) Bartolucci is scarcely someone to be given credence in matters of musical sensitivity, when you think that he presided for all those years over the horrendous braying of the Sistine Chapel Choir, and we now know that Willi Apel's work was already out of date at the time it appeared.

Hmm. What an inaccurate generalisation about Willi Apel's work. Makes you wonder why all those scholars felt so inclined to give him a birthday present. As for Mgr Bartolucci, it just does to show that even people as musically insensitive as him know that Mocquereau's theory is invalid, when you don't.

[Southern Comfort]

You just don't get it, do you?

There is little point in debating with someone (a) who thinks he knows everything when in fact he doesn't, and (b) who is always right when in fact he may not be; and (c) who is accordingly incapable of true dialogue with people who hold different opinions from those he himself holds, or who may even know more than he does.

This forum is founded upon listening to each other, not about pontificating, nor about refusing to talk about anything, even though one's own opinions may differ.

The inordinately long, intended-to-crush (sometimes, though they do not succeed) and (yes, let's be honest) boring diatribes that we have seen in recent times in my view do not encourage others to enter the arena, even though they have something valid to contribute. And when those diatribes are, even in part, founded upon inaccuracies or misapprehensions, loath though the perpetrator may be to admit it, then there is no possibility of a civilised interchange. In my opinion you have a lot to contribute to this forum, but your contributions are not the be-all and end-all of everything. There is room for much else. Once again, this forum is looking for dialogue, not for one single opinion that all must hold.

I am sorry for the frank speaking, but I think it is necessary. The best words to say in this situation, then, are "Lighten up, please!"

[Calum Cille]

SC and CC clearly stand on opposite sides of a debate of whose existence I was blissfully unaware.

It's not a debate in academic circles. It's only a debate for those ignorant of all the facts, or for the intransigent, and for those exposed to them.

Academia has accepted for quite some time now that the notations in documents such as Laon 239, Chartres 47 and so on represent a musical repertoire which possesses a degree of proportionality of rhythmic durations. Precisely how that proportionality expressed itself in rhythm cannot be provenly ascertained. Thus there are only three camps today - Solesmes (who, I am advised, remained intransigent), the proportionalists who advocate singing to a beat, and the proportionalists who advocate singing rhetorically. I know of no one advocating Mocquereau's theory; it doesn't get the time of day, for reasons obvious to me and mysterious to Southern Comfort who appears to be living under a rock.

The Solesmes monks set out to restore Gregorian chant and settled on an equalist rhythm (1:1) rather than proportionalist (eg, 1:1 & 1:2). Among the first proponents of proportionalism were Antoine Dechevrens (1898) and Peter Wagner's (1905) but it was Jan Vollaerts (1958) who (posthumously) first set out the full comparative argument using the whole variety of notational evidence (eg, Breton, Messine, Nonantolan, Aquitanian, Sankt Gallen etc). Unlike Vollaerts, Cardine (1968) set out his equalist argument with reference limited to Sankt Gallen notation.

With the sole exception of Solesmes, the proportionalist argument, in all its main contentions except that concerning the beat, is accepted throughout academia today, ie, the existence of long and short notes in the relevant earliest notations is not questioned.

Having said that Solesmes still don't accept it, there is the case of the preface to the Liber hymnarius (1983) which ostensibly describes the application of proportional values to the notes, and the new notation reflects at least one of these new proportional values.

"When an ordinary syllable is set to one note, this represents the fundamental rhythmic value used in Gregorian chant (i.e. valor syllabicus medius)."

Since there is also mention of a "valor syllabicus auctus","valor syllabicus diminutus" and even a "valor syllabicus diminutior" which gets its own neume, this terminology appears to denote four different durational lengths. Now, my Solesmophile friends are insistent that there has been no change of practice at Solesmes. If that is the case, this document is rather puzzling.

[Calum Cille]

You just don't get it, do you?

I get that I am engaging in structured discussion of your points whereas you launch into put downs of the person who has engaged you in discussion.

There is little point in debating with someone (a) who thinks he knows everything when in fact he doesn't,

Please provide evidence that I think I know everything. If you don't have it, then you are just making ad hominem attacks on me.

and (b) who is always right when in fact he may not be;

I refer you to my previous comment.

and (c) who is accordingly incapable of true dialogue with people who hold different opinions from those he himself holds,

The only person not discussing the points at the moment, and sounding forth about other people instead, is you. Therefore, the evidence at the moment suggests that you are currently incapable of true dialogue or responding to criticism of your viewpoint with little more than ad hominem diatribe.

or who may even know more than he does.

You often like to suggest the possibility that you know more than me. This is not my practice, I respond to your points with my points, not with statements about how clever I am compared to you.

This forum is founded upon listening to each other, not about pontificating,

If you were listening to me as I listened to you, you would be replying to my points, not making ad hominem attacks.

nor about refusing to talk about anything, even though one's own opinions may differ.

I am talking about something, I'm talking about what you have written, well aware that our opinions do indeed differ.

The inordinately long, intended-to-crush

Intend to crush who or what? I respond to argument and evidence with argument and evidence. If you feel I'm out to crush you rather than the argument, kindly back that up with evidence or desist from the ad hominem material. If you feel I'm out to crush an argument, I'm absolutely entitled to. Were you to argue that the Queen of England was Irish, I would be entirely entitled to crush that assertion with evidence that she isn't.

(sometimes, though they do not succeed) and (yes, let's be honest) boring diatribes

Enough of the ad hominem stuff. And, anyway, speak for yourself.

that we have seen in recent times in my view do not encourage others to enter the arena, even though they have something valid to contribute.

I disagree because quaeritor and John Ainslie seemed willing to participate.

And when those diatribes are, even in part, founded upon inaccuracies or misapprehensions,

Please provide evidence. Mere assertion is insufficient as proof.

loath though the perpetrator may be to admit it,

I'm rarely loathe to admit it when anything has been disproven.

then there is no possibility of a civilised interchange.

This is true while you seem unwilling to respond to my points with other than an ad hominem like this.

In my opinion you have a lot to contribute to this forum, but your contributions are not the be-all and end-all of everything.

I never said they were. This appears to be mere suspicion on your part; nothing I have said indicates this.

Once again, this forum is looking for dialogue, not for one single opinion that all must hold.

Then why is it that, when I question what you say here, you respond with an ad hominem diatribe? That is hardly constructive dialogue on our respective opinions.

I am sorry for the frank speaking, but I think it is necessary.

I think it entirely unwarranted.

The best words to say in this situation, then, are "Lighten up, please!"

The best words to say here might be, "Physician, heal thyself" or "can we get away from the ad hominem attacks on me and back to the discussion at hand, please?"

[NorthernTenor]

You just don't get it, do you?

There is little point in debating with someone (a) who thinks he knows everything when in fact he doesn't, and (b) who is always right when in fact he may not be; and (c) who is accordingly incapable of true dialogue with people who hold different opinions from those he himself holds, or who may even know more than he does.

This forum is founded upon listening to each other, not about pontificating, nor about refusing to talk about anything, even though one's own opinions may differ.

The inordinately long, intended-to-crush (sometimes, though they do not succeed) and (yes, let's be honest) boring diatribes that we have seen in recent times in my view do not encourage others to enter the arena, even though they have something valid to contribute. And when those diatribes are, even in part, founded upon inaccuracies or misapprehensions, loath though the perpetrator may be to admit it, then there is no possibility of a civilised interchange. In my opinion you have a lot to contribute to this forum, but your contributions are not the be-all and end-all of everything. There is room for much else. Once again, this forum is looking for dialogue, not for one single opinion that all must hold.

I am sorry for the frank speaking, but I think it is necessary. The best words to say in this situation, then, are "Lighten up, please!"

Astonishing. You really don't get it, do you Paul?

[alan29]

Some exchanges are better done by PMs, I think.

[Calum Cille]

Some exchanges are better done by PMs, I think.

Tried that on a previous occasion, alan29. No response.

Besides which, most people think it reasonable that people be entitled to defend themselves in public from public attacks on their character.

[alan29]

Some exchanges are better done by PMs, I think.

Tried that on a previous occasion, alan29. No response.

Besides which, most people think it reasonable that people be entitled to defend themselves in public from public attacks on their character.

I take your point, Callum.

[Peter Jones]

Some exchanges are better done by PMs, I think.

Ne merda taurorum animas conturbit.

[Nick Baty]

Do not disquiet the souls of the excrement of bulls?

[Peter Jones]

Do not disquiet the souls of the excrement of bulls?

Borderline C- D+ NB. Not quite.

[Nick Baty]

Sorry. My Brummy is weak.

[quaeritor]

[/quote="calum cille (I think - I'm doing this longhand)"]

I disagree because quaeritor and John Ainslie seemed willing to participate.

Don't know about you, John, but I'd rather not get dragged into this - I'm very interested in the technical discussion, though not the personal vituperation.

Come on SC and CC - give me some sources to read.

I must say that from the start it seemed to me that if the correct interpretation of the squiggles was to be as the Solesmes model had it there would have been no need for such complex squiggles, (just the kind of blobs we find in the new missal) and that if you were to try to represent graphically the kind of ornamentation found in traditional folk music (oh no! he's not off on the folk music bit again!!) then you'd end up with something not unlike the more ornate plainsong pieces (in fact there's a collection of Irish tunes with an intro that supports this hypotheses explicitly). But I'm not taking sides - just quote your sources - please!

Q

[contrabordun]

I'm very interested in the technical discussion, though not the personal vituperation.

Seconded

[Calum Cille]

Well, quaeritor, speaking as the object of the personal vituperation whose side you do not wish to take, I hope you can understand me consequently not wishing to expose myself to possible further personal vituperation from Southern Comfort at your behest.

I'm very interested in the technical discussion, though not the personal vituperation.

Seconded

Thirded.