Voice Leading In Gregorian Chant Accompaniment

Here is a special contribution from Jeffrey Ostrowski:

As evidence that Gregorian accompaniment is a legitimate part of our Catholic musical tradition, Corpus Christi Watershed has posted more than 15,000 pages of chant accompaniments, which you can freely download at the Lalande Library Website. I have been advised to keep this article rather short, so I will (alas!) only be including a handful of examples.

The opinions expressed below correspond solely to my own ideas about what a “standard” Gregorian accompaniment should be. In general, my perspective is the same as the Lemmens Institute, which produced the Nova Organi Harmonia. For more on this, please read the Preface to our new Chabanel Psalms Publication. I do not consider “improvised” harmonizations or those that use special registrations, as this would require a separate article.

Let’s start with an example by the legendary Gregorianist, Dr. Peter Wagner. He churned out literally thousands of pages of Gregorian accompaniments, but I have serious issues with his approach. The below (part of a melisma on the syllable “num” of Dominum) is a typical example:

Frankly, I think his accompaniment is just awful. The entire thing is basically just one, long, boring, root-position C chord. It doesn’t “go” anywhere, harmonically. Then, too, I don’t like how he uses an incomplete chord (marked as no. 1), something Wagner does constantly. This example also displays something I loathe in Gregorian accompaniments: it leaves a chord, then immediately returns to that same chord (marked as 2-3-4). When I see an accompaniment like this (which, by the way, he obviously liked, because he repeats it each time this melody occurs), I cannot help but wonder why he didn’t do something like this:

That was the first harmonization that popped into my head (which probably means I’ll hate it tomorrow morning). Granted, I’m not saying it’s perfect, but it uses structural changes of chords (in other words, it “goes” somewhere), uses a variety of different chords (to avoid ear fatigue), employs plenty of common tones, starts with a nice “walking” bass line (which, in Grad school, you have to call “stepwise,” just like you have to call a “pick up” note an “anacrusis”), and “consistent” harmonic rhythm (i.e. subtle chord changes at regular intervals).

Next is an example by Achille P. Bragers:

To me, the first half is decent. But in the second half:

(A) He “camps out” on a chord I dislike for a long time (blue bar). Were I to use such a chord, I certainly would not sit on it for such a long time.
(B) I find one spot in particular (red bar) quite “stagnant.” I would prefer some kind of motion or progression there.
(C) Just as Wagner did, he falls into the age-old trap (pink bar): he leaves a chord, then immediately returns to it. Some might argue that it’s not exactly the same chord, but my ear certainly hears it as (essentially) a root-position, D-Major chord.

Now for an excerpt by Rev. Fr. Michael Horn, O.S.B., a Gregorianist from the Monastery of Seckau. Of all the books we’ve added to the Lalande Library, his Kyriale accompaniment is certainly one of the rarest.

Marked by a red bar is a spot my composition teachers would say has a bad case of “Wanderitis.” His accompaniment simply wanders around. It doesn’t “go” anywhere (again, a common defect in so many Gregorian accompaniments).

This example, by Max Springer (a famous Gregorianist), has some really nice moments:

However, I find many places quite disturbing. For instance, at the red line, he employs a Dominant 7th chord (which is pretty much the chord you must avoid at all costs), and then adds insult to injury by resolving to an incomplete F Major chord. Mozart would be proud, but those of us who adhere to the “Lemmens school” cringe. Then, too, note how he leaves and then returns to the same exact chord three times in a row (marked by orange stars)!

This next example is very painful for me, as I’m forced to criticize the predecessor to the Nova Organi Harmonia:

It would seem the Desmet brothers and Depuydt still had a lot to learn. Their accompaniment is quite stagnant (purple bar). Then it suddenly harmonizes each note (red bar), just like they did in the nineteenth century!

We are offering a special, brand new collection of Gregorian accompaniments for Responsorial Psalms, wherein I’ve attempted to avoid every pitfall, presenting (hopefully) a true representation of the Lemmens school of accompaniment. If you value the resources offered by Corpus Christi Watershed, such as the Lalande Library, I would ask you to please send your friends to this link. Sales of books will help us continue our work for the Church.

Here is a typical example of a Chabanel Psalm. There are hundreds more like it in the 180 page organist book, and all feature: 100% modal purity, harmonizations that “go” somewhere, counterpoint appropriate to Gregorian accompaniments (i.e. contrary motion, correct voice leading, abundant common tones, and pedal tones in all voices), and numerous varied harmonizations of each Refrain that work well in any conceivable circumstance or acoustic. At all times, jarring chord changes are avoided.

By the way, the Chabanel Psalms don’t require organ accompaniment. Here’s an example of how they sound a cappella:

9 Replies to “Voice Leading In Gregorian Chant Accompaniment”

  1. I would agree with much of what you say, Jeffrey. I would also be curious about your opinion of the French school closely associated with Solesmes to which I am partial. There is something sweet about Henri Potiron's accompaniments and to some extent the current Solesmes edition by abbe Ferdinand Portier. Maybe it is because I live in a French milieu and so am "used" to French musical expression. But looking ahead at the Introit for Gaudete Sunday I am astonished at Potiron's grasp of the passion that St Paul had in his words, and how Potiron was able to express this through the harmony.
    Of course the ideal is to do the accompaniment "ad lib", hic et nunc, in any suitable key, which is an art that is rare today.

  2. Hi Ted,
    Why is this the ideal? I am curious, and not in a negative sense. Simply a quest for knowledge, because I did not know that improvisation (in the accompaniment) is an ideal for liturgical music.

  3. Friends,

    Many thanks for these comments, and thanks to Jeffrey Tucker for allowing me to post this short reflection.

    Ted: generally speaking, I have no problem with the French school. (Please see below article)

    Anonymous: I agree with Ted about improvised accompaniments, and I talk about this in the below article.

    Here is a longer article I wrote 3-4 years ago that I think you might enjoy:

    http://chabanelpsalms.org/introductory_material/modus_operandi_modal_accompaniment.htm

    …Gee whiz, I hope I still agree with everything I said back then….

    I chose to begin that article with this quote:

    "Musicians deprived of aesthetic taste will uselessly struggle to find suitable harmonies to
    the Gregorian melodies." —Traite d'harmonie of Rameau (published in 1722)

  4. Jeff,

    Does your ear hear the consecutive 5ths in your harmonisation as something that fits the style? I raise the point not to criticise (having used them myself as a conscious archaism), but out of interest in the issue of what we hear when we marry common practice harmony with modal, monophonic chant.

  5. IanW, thanks for the comment! On this, please see the Preface by Van Nuffel:

    http://ccwatershed.org/psalms/organist/

    After explaining the "Modus Operandi," Msgr. Van Nuffel says:

    "In basing our work on the principles duly established, we did not believe it necessary to strictly adhere to those principles without permitting exceptions. Thus, for aesthetic reasons, we have not removed certain fifths and octaves, the elimination of which would have caused many discordant resolutions, nor have we absolutely condemned the free entrance and the resolution of certain dissonances. In the case of conflict between the rule and the aesthetic solution, we have always favored flexibility. This license will not disrupt the strictness nor the archaic and logical harmonization of the overall work."

    Or, as others have reminded us about modal chant accompaniments: "It ain't a Bach Chorale."

    🙂 God bless!

  6. "It ain't a Bach Chorale."

    I can't tell you how much I have wanted to shout that at my organist. The accompaniments in the 1982 for some of the chant hymns is so cluttered. I keep saying, "Think French medieval Catholic, not German Protestant."
    Some members of the forum have pointed me to older hymnals with better accompaniments.

    I greatly prefer unaccompanied chant- but there is, of course, good reason to use the organ. I would love to see good (Jeff Ostrowski-level good) accompaniments for the more common hymns and chants in the Parish Book of Chant.
    —-

    "Musicians deprived of aesthetic taste will uselessly struggle to find suitable harmonies to
    the Gregorian melodies."

    Is he suggesting that musicians with taste will find suitable harmonies? Or that musicians with taste will not struggle, because they'll just sing them unaccompanied?

  7. I too like the many (but not all) of the Potiron accompaniments.
    We normally sing the propers unaccompanied, but I like his Gaudete so much that I am considering asking the organist to accompany us this time.

Comments are closed.