| Welcome to Old Hispanic Office. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. You are very welcome to read the forum, to learn about our research on the Old Hispanic office, and about the ways in which composers are developing some of our research findings into modern compositions. We invite composers who are interested in the Composition CompetitionRe-imagining Old Hispanic musical culture to register and join in the discussion. Others with an interest in Old Hispanic chant and liturgy are equally welcome to join the conversation. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account in order to post messages: |
| A couple of questions about a specific chant; Some help with neumes and interesting melismas | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 23 2015, 11:58 AM (279 Views) | |
| Benedict Todd | Jul 23 2015, 11:58 AM Post #1 |
|
Good morning! I have a couple of questions about a particular chant that I have been looking at recently, having come across it as a result of Raquel’s enormously useful Pictures of Old Hispanic chant manuscripts available online thread. The chant in question is, I gather (thank you Emma!) the second half of the sacrificium chant ‘Haec dicit Dominus formans te’; I’m particularly interested in the passage beginning at ‘Effundam spiritum meum’ on folio 209v and then 210r from Codex 30 (E-Mah Cod. 30). A number of things jumped out at me about this chant and text, but I have two particular questions for you today, if I may? I find the whole subject of the neumatic notation of these manuscripts fascinating, particularly the way that we can still understand some elements (some idea of contour) and yet not others (eg. absolute pitch). I have an idea for how this might be applied in a composition, but to do this it would be really helpful to know a little bit about what you can read from this specific chant. In particular I’d be really interested to know about the contours of the opening phrase: ‘Effundam spiritum meum super te’. Using some of the really interesting threads on the subject here, as well as the Appendix from Emma’s book, I’ve had a bit of a guess, but it would be great to hear from the experts! My best guess is something along the lines of: (Ef-)NH (-fun-)NH L NHHLHHL (-dam)H NHL (spi-)NH (-ri-)NHL (-tum)NH HHLH (me-)L NHLHLHLHH[?!] (-um)NH (su-)NHHL (-per-)HSH (-te)L [sorry if I’ve mangled it!] Second question: I remember attending a seminar at which the significance of melismatic phrases in this repertoire was being discussed (as possible devices to heighten the spiritual experience of the text or emphasise a particular theological interpretation?). Another reason that I found this chant interesting is that, having looked through most of Codex 30, as well as parts of the two manuscripts available online through the British Library, this chant seems to have some of the longer and most frequent uses of melismas that I have come across. I wonder whether you have any thoughts on why this might be? I’m particularly interested in the two on the first page - ‘germinabitis’ and ‘fluentes’; to my mind it looks so much like word painting – growing/sprouting and flowing – although I’m aware that this may well be applying too much of a 21st century viewpoint on things. They also seem very keen to emphasise the ‘mei’ on the second page. Do you think this is to do with the importance of the whole phrase (‘Ego Dominus et non est preter me’ - interestingly similar to various passages in Isaiah, and yet not exactly like any one verse I can find)? Or is there something very significant about the fact that it is God who is speaking here? Actually, the other two on that page are interesting too – they all are! Sorry for such a long post, but I look forward to hearing your views. Benedict |
![]() |
|
| Emma Hornby | Jul 24 2015, 08:50 PM Post #2 |
|
Administrator
|
Ef: NH fun: NH-N-NHHL [and yes, the contour of the neumes does make it look like NH-L-HHHL, but we are taking nothing for granted - they don't always seem to follow the melodic contour in the spacing on the page between neumes] dam: NSHL [This combination of a vertical stroke plus that exact NHL shape is always NSHL - there are lots and lots of examples - it's a melodic formula] spi: NH ri:NHL tum: NH-NLH me: N-NHHLH um: NH su: N-NHL per: NSH (or N-NH, but it think the second note is probably the same as the first - it's another common combination) te: N You had quite a lot of extra notes in your transcription - either we are looking at a different bit, or else you are getting distracted by the "bleed through" which is where ink on the other side of the parchment is visible on the photograph of this side of the parchment (gah!) |
![]() |
|
| Emma Hornby | Jul 24 2015, 08:56 PM Post #3 |
|
Administrator
|
Reasons for long and big melismas - it's because of the genre. This is a sacrificium, which is the equivalent of the offertory chant, and this genre does indeed have some of the most elaborate and complex melodies in the whole repertoire. It was sung at one of the most theologically crucial moments of the whole repertoire, and was a solo chant sung by an expert cantor - so it's the moment with the greatest amount of musical display, if that's the right word. We very often find that the big melismas are at a textual crux - not always, but almost always. It's an opportunity, I think, for people to pause and reflect on these very important (and of course totally familiar because biblical) words. I don't know about word painting - I haven't gone in that direction, because in the end, we can just pick any word that is about movement in some way and say "the melody moves, therefore it is word painting", so I tend to back off that sort of approach. It is too hard to prove that was the intention, because it is completely self-referential. This is a chant for a saint's feast, and I have not looked closely at too many of those. However, through Lent, we found a lot of examples where the biblical text was adapted in order to put "me" with a cadential melisma - there seems to be a thread through at least part of the liturgy where the important thing is to relate these biblical texts to the experience of the gathered community in a very direct, almost "role playing" manner. So not just "God is angry" but "God is angry with ME" (with a big melisma on "me"). There may be something of that nature going on here. |
![]() |
|
| « Previous Topic · Discussion threads · Next Topic » |






8:25 PM Jul 11