This is a post I prepared for the now locked
thread which provides its context.
The difference may also come from the historical 5-syllable pronunciation of Al-le-lu-i-a in Slavonic, which causes the individual syllable stresses to be less intense than in a 4-syllable pronunciation. The melodic LINE is kept in both cases, but the pronunciation of the new settings favors the English. Is that what you were asking about? (And yes, there was an extant oral tradition that pretty much matches what the IEMC did, when cantors sang the English ad libitum to the chant melody, and I've heard it in use.)
Jeff,
Thanks for your very detailed answers here and elsewhere, for your posts and illustrations in previous threads. And thank you also to those who offer different viewpoints with similar conviction and a shared devotion to our tradition of congregational singing.
My question about an oral tradition had to do with the Alleluia's. Why would an oral tradition for singing Alleluia (Slavonic Liturgy) need to be changed when introducing English? It seems it could have been retained as is, automatically.
Also, for tone 1 for instance, if the model was Bokshai, why restore all but four notes? Having gone that far, why not go all the way? This would also keep the integrity of the setting intact for a situation where it is possible to do so, since the words are the same. I grant that for me at least, Bokshai's phrasing has some surprises but by that fact also a certain charm and uniqueness.
Let me go out on a limb on the whole accent, music/text issue. We all agree that the text is the primary thing; what we sing should come across as intelligibly as well-spoken English. Yet when we add melody/chant to the words let's not kid ourselves, they are affected. This is especially so for melismatic phrases: when I speak I don't say He--ar me O--o--- Lo---rd. I think the text in fact does make a certain accommodation to the music and the two are, in a sense, wedded, i.e the music is more spouse than slave. The bottom line is, how does it sound overall, music and words together.
So one can produce settings according to the best modern theories and standards, and a choir or a professional will find it a breeze to sing, but the peasant in the pew like me wants, for lack of a better term, regularity, something that as directly as possible conveys the pacing and flow and allows us to anticipate the coming inflections. It can be melismatic as long as it is not too demanding in technique; and even if simple, it must not disrupt the flow, the pacing, because of rigid demands on accentuation etc.. Something fine tuned can seem harder and awkward to sing because it is too customized. And while such theoretically correct settings may impress the music professional and show our sophistication based on
current standards, the purpose is defeated
if (the polls haven't closed yet) the melodic expression is obscured in that the people can't sing it.
So maybe our chant must be accommodated on its own terms: a certain flexibility in expression that generates its intangible but discernible and essential
duch.
Dn. Anthony