A beautiful and telling reflection by Michael Lawrence that is not to be missed.
Many say that chant cannot depict the meaning of the text because so many melodies are used for multiple texts. Many other melodies are highly formulaic. For instance, mode 5 has little motifs that are typically found, all mixed up, in any number of mode 5 chants, even though the melody, from start to finish, is not exactly the same. This is also cited as a reason why the chant cannot be expressive of the meaning of the text: How can the same material express the several ideas of different antiphons? Sometimes, in our rush to come up with thesis topics, we say some awfully questionable things, and this whole business of early music taking no heed of the text is an example of this. READ MORE
Michael has picked up my point exactly.
The two pieces he mentions have more specific text representation, however. Jubilate Deo is one of two chants, beginning with the same two words which do about the same thing; the first, in mode 5, is a wonderful piece that is scarcely ever sung, since in the OF it is for the First Sunday in Ordinary Time, which is systematically replaced by the Baptism of Christ, being provided only for the weekdays following the Sunday. In the EF it is replaced by the Holy Family.
In both chants, the repetition has a very particular meaning. The first statement is an exhortation to sing joyfully. The second responds to the first by doing just that, singing joyfully, for the melismas in both chants are probably the longest to be found in any offertory and the most exuberant among all the Gregorian Mass propers. Thus, these melismas are not just a fancy repetition, but an instantiation of just what the first statement urges.
The communion on the Wedding at Cana is notable for the way that it distinguishes the speech of three speakers: the narrator is in a middle range, Christ in a low range, and the chief steward in a high range.. This is exactly the procedure for the chanting of the Passions. Until recently, it was thought that these Passion tones were a late development, but Michel Huglo has shown that they are quite early. So, it is quite likely that the communion antiphon plays upon the conventions of the passion tones.
JSBach picked up the "low-voice=Christ" in his Passions, but the narrator used a high voice.
Following the very-excited text of the chief steward–one can imagine him waving his hands during that outburst–the resumption of the narrative seems to impart an 'offhand' tone, as if the narrator is saying "A miracle? Yup. Now off to another town." That 'now we're off to another town' also comes through the music of the last phrase; it's sort of 'walking away' music.
That's not unlike the incipit of the Mass of Easter Sunday's Introit: very calm, almost offhand "I arose, and Am with you." To me it conveys a matter-of-fact offhandedness: "I told you this would happen, guys. So here I am. Whassamatta? You didn't think so??"
Thank you for chiming in, Dr. Mahrt, with some very fascinating observations. I will add your comment as an appendix to my original post.
Now that I think about it, given Dr. Mahrt's observations, this might mean that there is no rhetorical aspect, per se, to Jubilate Deo, and that the whole basis of my argument needs to be re-done. Or am I over-thinking this?
These are very rhetorical elements. In the communion as in the passion tone, the differentiation of the voices of the speakers is a lovely rhetorical addition to the grammatical element of representing the sentence structure of each speech.
In the jubilate Deo settings, it is also a rhetirical process: an imperative answered by compliance to the imperative, which turns out to be an intrinsically rhetorical setting of the text representing jublation with exuberant melismas.