# Knowledge of plainchant before musical notation



## khoff999

I have been listening to music of the early Middle Ages, but I don't understand how we know what it (plainchant, etc) sounded like before the musical notation of Guido of Arezzo c. 1000 CE

Can someone explain how we know what the chants actually sounded like, or is what I am listening to only educated approximations of them?


----------



## NoCoPilot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_notation#History


----------



## Mandryka

khoff999 said:


> I have been listening to music of the early Middle Ages, but I don't understand how we know what it (plainchant, etc) sounded like before the musical notation of Guido of Arezzo c. 1000 CE
> 
> Can someone explain how we know what the chants actually sounded like, or is what I am listening to only educated approximations of them?


Approximations at best. Unsupported doctrinaire aesthetic presuppositions at worst.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Supposedly there were also some traditions in Syria (like what Marie Keyrouz (? sp?) does) or other regions that at least give clues to early or pre-medieval chant. Of course, one never knows how traditions might have evolved and changed. But we should also keep in mind that for other musical traditions this is usally ALL we have, i.e. there is no rudimentary notation from 1500 years ago, there is just traditional going from master to pupils.


----------



## EdwardBast

The best theory going, IMO, is that before notation caught on, chant was an oral improvised tradition based on formulaic units that varied according to their function and position within the chant, the mode being used, and the nature of the text. A chant would often begin with an initial ascent, followed by a bit mostly on a single important pitch (the reciting tone), and then a usually descending part to wrap up the phrase. Such phrases made of several functional units (initial ascent, recitation, cadential unit, etc) were often strung together in setting longer texts, sometimes with a change of mode in the middle. When the rise of notation facilitated the possibility of standardizing the chant repertoire, the church dispatched musicians to transcribe the chants as they were being improvised at some of the major musical establishments (cathedrals and schools) throughout Europe, at which point the improvised tradition became frozen in time and the art of improvisation atrophied. Students in these establishments presumably had learned the art of improvisation by imitating the more experienced and skilled, not necessarily note for note, but more likely by the flexible manipulation of functional units.

The evidence for this theory was gathered by comparing all of the chants in particular categories (by mode and text) and comparing them to find common elements. The functional units I've mentioned seemed to be the primary common thread.

I had a seminar on chant during my studies in which, for a final project, one of my compatriots attempted to learn to improvise certain kinds of chants (Dorian antiphons or something) according to the theory described above. I say attempted because the few weeks he had to accomplish this task were not sufficient to gain real mastery.


----------



## SanAntone

khoff999 said:


> I have been listening to music of the early Middle Ages, but I don't understand how we know what it (plainchant, etc) sounded like before the musical notation of Guido of Arezzo c. 1000 CE
> 
> Can someone explain how we know what the chants actually sounded like, or is what I am listening to only educated approximations of them?


Prior to Guido's work there were manuscripts with neumes written above the words which outlined the shape of the melodic segments and served as mnemonic devices for essentially what was an oral tradition. Guido's main contribution was to the art of singing solfège, i.e. learning how to interpret the intervals of notation that already existed.

I'd say that some form of notation exists at least 100-150 years prior to Guido. And prior to that the oral tradition existed which was later transcribed into notation, which preserved the traditional chant.


----------



## khoff999

EdwardBast said:


> ..... before notation caught on, chant was an oral improvised tradition based on formulaic units that varied according to their function and position within the chant, the mode being used, and the nature of the text. A chant would often begin with an initial ascent, followed by a bit mostly on a single important pitch (the reciting tone), and then a usually descending part to wrap up the phrase. Such phrases made of several functional units (initial ascent, recitation, cadential unit, etc) were often strung together in setting longer texts, sometimes with a change of mode in the middle. When the rise of notation facilitated the possibility of standardizing the chant repertoire, the church dispatched musicians to transcribe the chants as they were being improvised at some of the major musical establishments (cathedrals and schools) throughout Europe, at which point the improvised tradition became frozen in time and the art of improvisation atrophied. Students in these establishments presumably had learned the art of improvisation by imitating the more experienced and skilled, not necessarily note for note, but more likely by the flexible manipulation of functional units.


 Thanks, Edward, that makes sense to me. Neumes were worthless for conveying accurate notes so I suspected chants were orally transmitted until the 11th century, but not with any strict accuracy. Your information about improvisation clarified what I suspected.


----------



## SanAntone

Neumes were not "worthless" (had them been so, they never would have appeared in so many manuscripts). 

As I said they were mnemonic devices, to help a singer remember the melodies they had been taught and learned through an oral tradition. And while there is speculation about chant improvisation we really don't have any hard evidence of how important that aspect was. Neumes were the transitional phase between a purely oral tradition and the formulation of a complete notational system,.

Chant square note notation is directly related to the neume shapes, which were drawn from the same kind of notation which was found in poetry to indicate stresses and meter. Chant music was intended to express the text in a way that mirrored how it would have been recited.


----------



## SanAntone

To give you an example of what I am describing here's a photo of neumes and the notation which developed from them.


----------



## khoff999

SanAntone said:


> Neumes were not "worthless" (had them been so, they never would have appeared in so many manuscripts).
> 
> As I said they were mnemonic devices, to help a singer remember the melodies they had been taught and learned through an oral tradition. And while there is speculation about chant improvisation we really don't have any hard evidence of how important that aspect was. Neumes were the transitional phase between a purely oral tradition and the formulation of a complete notational system,.
> 
> Chant square note notation is directly related to the neume shapes, which were drawn from the same kind of notation which was found in poetry to indicate stresses and meter. Chant music was intended to express the text in a way that mirrored how it would have been recited.


Sorry, but as I said "neumes were worthless for conveying accurate notes." As you said, they were only good for jogging the memory of someone who already knew the chant. So they were worthless for preserving chants for people who did not know the chants. Geez!!


----------



## SanAntone

There were no people who did not know the chants who were going to sing them.

I thought you were asking about the history of the chant period and of notation. I have given you a thumbnail sketch of it; take it or leave it. But I don't have any patience for your disrespectful remarks.


----------



## khoff999

SanAntone said:


> I thought you were asking about the history of the chant period and of notation. I have given you a thumbnail sketch of it; take it or leave it.


 I don't think you understood what I was saying, but someone else did and gave me an informative reply. So you don't have to be concerned about it anymore.


----------



## Luchesi

Many members have seen this entertaining video on notation's early days.


----------



## khoff999

Luchesi said:


> Many members have seen this entertaining video on notation's early days.


It was from Goodall's videos I discovered the problem I raised in this thread. He doesn't explicitly say so, but he suggests that chants and the versions we have today were what was written down after Guido invented the staff c. 1000 because between c. 500 and 900 they were continuously morphing both through invention and error. 

He clearly points out why no one after the the staff was invented could know exactly what the notes were in chants from neumes written a century or two earlier. 

I enjoy many of Goodall's documentaries and have learned some interesting things from them. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Luchesi

khoff999 said:


> It was from Goodall's videos I discovered the problem I raised in this thread. He doesn't explicitly say so, but he suggests that chants and the versions we have today were what was written down after Guido invented the staff c. 1000 because between c. 500 and 900 they were continuously morphing both through invention and error.
> 
> He clearly points out why no one after the the staff was invented could know exactly what the notes were in chants from neumes written a century or two earlier.
> 
> I enjoy many of Goodall's documentaries and have learned some interesting things from them. Thanks for posting.


"no one after the the staff was invented could know exactly what the notes were"

I assume the notes could be any notes (within the comfortable, male vocal range). They would be determined by the mind's ear from the reference note. How do humans do that? How do humans 'hear' a key and then are guided into the future by that key?

How did the three boys from Liverpool come up with songs from the harmonies they grew up with without knowing the basics of writing a song (at the level that they needed for effectiveness)? I'm fascinated by the mysterious nature of the near infinite potential of notes within keys and then the same notes within different keys.

If you happened to start on G flat - you wouldn't care back then that it was G flat.

I don't know, I'm just thinking out loud. But so much is left out in the academic studies about the mystery that I care so much about.. The ideas that five times the fundamental became easy enough for audiences to hear, but then, six times the fundamental was difficult to discern (from five times and seven times the fundamental). It all comes down to physics.


----------



## Nate Miller

A couple years ago our choir director put together a chant ensemble and we read from neumes. They aren't worthless at all, once you learn a few basics. We're Catholic, so we use this sort of thing at Mass. There are monasteries where many of these chants are still sung regularly (at the various offices throughout the day), so I just want to caution against the idea that no one living today has any knowledge of how to perform Latin chants from neumes. 

Just because it isn't happening very often in concert halls or recording studios, don't get the idea that it isn't happening.


----------



## khoff999

Nate Miller said:


> A couple years ago our choir director put together a chant ensemble and we read from neumes. They aren't worthless at all, once you learn a few basics. We're Catholic, so we use this sort of thing at Mass. There are monasteries where many of these chants are still sung regularly (at the various offices throughout the day), so I just want to caution against the idea that no one living today has any knowledge of how to perform Latin chants from neumes.
> 
> Just because it isn't happening very often in concert halls or recording studios, don't get the idea that it isn't happening.


Unless you can convincingly show that what is being sung today are the exact same notes for a specific chant in say, the 8th century, you haven't addressed what I am saying at all.


----------



## Nate Miller

khoff999 said:


> Unless you can convincingly show that what is being sung today are the exact same notes for a specific chant in say, the 8th century, you haven't addressed what I am saying at all.



you act like there is no Catholic tradition at all. Adoro Te is the same chant that I sang yesterday for the 2nd communion hymn that it was a long time ago. That is because there have been people singing it since the dark ages. 

you are setting up a straw man argument because you know that there are no You Tube vids from the 8th century to specifically document to the standard you laid down, but Catholics have sung these for centuries. 

how do we know? because we've been doing it for 2000 years.


----------



## khoff999

Nate Miller said:


> you act like there is no Catholic tradition at all. Adoro Te is the same chant that I sang yesterday for the 2nd communion hymn that it was a long time ago. That is because there have been people singing it since the dark ages.
> 
> you are setting up a straw man argument because you know that there are no You Tube vids from the 8th century to specifically document to the standard you laid down, but Catholics have sung these for centuries.
> 
> how do we know? because we've been doing it for 2000 years.


Again, a claim with no evidence - and some added babbling about me acting like there is "no catholic tradition". Traditions passed orally over centuries have no guarantee that they will be reproduced exactly as they are passed along. And so far in this thread neumes from the ninth century have not been shown to represent precise notes. 

And you are just dishonest when you claim I said the I "know" anything at all. What I did was - ask- if what the musician Goodall in the video above said was true. And no one presented any evidence that it is not, including you. So, if you have a music scholar who says they have been exactly represented through the centuries, please provide that information. But you saying that they have been sung for centuries doesn't address the issue at all.


----------



## rcstaats

khoff999 said:


> I have been listening to music of the early Middle Ages, but I don't understand how we know what it (plainchant, etc) sounded like before the musical notation of Guido of Arezzo c. 1000 CE
> 
> Can someone explain how we know what the chants actually sounded like, or is what I am listening to only educated approximations of them?


We certainly do not have any recordings, but music was an *oral and performance tradition* long before it was written down. Musical historians have asserted that the earliest musical, written pieces were almost certainly *re-statements of the melodies and forms that had existed for centuries* before the written versions. (Even Mozart used common folk tunes for some of his works, e.g., Twinkle, Twinkle and the Happy Birthday song.)


----------



## khoff999

rcstaats said:


> We certainly do not have any recordings, but music was an *oral and performance tradition* long before it was written down. Musical historians have asserted that the earliest musical, written pieces were almost certainly *re-statements of the melodies and forms that had existed for centuries* before the written versions. (Even Mozart used common folk tunes for some of his works, e.g., Twinkle, Twinkle and the Happy Birthday song.)


Mozart and many other composers used folk melodies in their works, but they used the melodies from tunes as they heard them in their time. That says nothing about what the melodies sounded like well before then, if they were actually centuries old. As far as I have found out, the twinkle, twinkle variations were from a French tune "*Ah vous dirai-je, Maman" *which first published only twenty years old when Mozart used it. So I don't see how this is relevant to the topic. 

And yes, we already know that post musical notation chants were "restatements" of older chants. The question is whether the "restatements" accurately reproduced the melodies of the pre-notation chant. Can you cite any of the music historians you mentioned who stated whether they were or were not?


----------

