Questions about the nomenclature of GABC/NABC elements in a score file

[lbssousa]

As I submit contributions to this project, I'm concerned that I may be introducing inconsistencies in the technical nomenclature of GABC and NABC code elements in a score file. Could you please clarify this for me?

In the code example (gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A|gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B), what's the correct terminology for:

• each element gabc_A and gabc_B?
• each element nabc_1A, nabc_2A, nabc_1B, and nabc_2B?
• each segment gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A and gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B?
• the complete code gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A|gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B?

[rpspringuel]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, which may be because there's not a great deal of consistency in the existing documentation.

There are two places in the documentation where I know some terminology is defined and used:

Inserting Code explicitly defines three "levels" as relevant to gabc notation (for inserting verbatim code):

• note level
• glyph level
• element level

These levels refer back to Gregorio Structure, which, it should be noted, does not make explicit reference to gabc notation. However, if you read it closely, you'll note that it is not possible to map gabc_A or gabc_B to any of these levels without knowing more about the content.

Additionally, while never defined, we commonly use the words "text" (or "lyrics") and "notes" to refer to the two parts of a "syllable": text(notes).

Introducing nabc further complicates things as GregorioNabcRef.tex uses "snippets" to describe each individual part of your above sequence (gabc_A, nabc_1A, nabc_2A, etc. are all snippets in this parlance) while the \gabcsnippet command is used for including, potentially, a whole score (albeit, a relatively uncomplicated one that doesn't require the use of special headers).

GregorioNabcRef.tex then further breaks down the snippets:

Each nabc snippet consists of a sequence of complex neume
descriptors. Each complex neume descriptor consists of
optional horizontal spacing adjustment descriptor, then complex glyph
descriptor, optionally followed by a sequence of subpunctis and prepunctis
descriptors, optionally followed by a sequence of significant letter
descriptors.

So, as you can see there isn't a consistent set of terminology being used that could be mapped onto the parts that you identified.

[lbssousa]

@davidweichiang uses to refer to each unit gabc_A, nabc_1A, nabc_2A, etc. in the example above as voices. Some parts of gregorio source code (including some contributions from mine) also use the terminology voices for this case.

So, if we all agree to work on standardizing the terminologies, I would suggest the following to begin the discussions:

• each element gabc_A and gabc_B: GABC voice
• each element nabc_1A, nabc_2A, nabc_1B, and nabc_2B: NABC voice
• each segment gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A and gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B: Neume or Neume segment
• the complete code gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A|gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B: Melisma or Neume group

[davidweichiang]

I don't think I refer to gabc_A as a "voice," at least not in a way that would make your example have 6 voices. Rather, your example has 3 voices.

I think I've been calling gabc_A a "segment", and gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A a "cycle". I think I would just call the whole thing the "notes".

[lbssousa]

@davidweichiang you're right. Sorry for the mistake.

I asked my gregorian chant teachers, and they suggested the following terminology, based on Göschl-Augustoni work (which introduced the concepts of monogroup neumes and poligroup neumes):

• each segment gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A and gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B: Group
• the complete code gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A|gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B (everything between parentheses and assigned to a single lyrics syllable): Neume

[rpspringuel]

Do you have a citation (or link) for the Göshl-Augustoni work (preferably in English, but I can also deal with French) so that I can read it?

[lbssousa]

The book is Introduzione all’interpretazione del Canto Gregoriano, Tomo I - Principi fondamentali.

In section 1.6.2 (page 130), it says:

I neumi l e 7, di una sola nota, si chiamano n eu mi monosonici. I
neumi 2 - 6, di più note, si chiamano neumi plurisonici o, meglio, neumi-gruppo.
Il neuma-gruppo si suddivide, a sua volta, in neuma monogruppo e
in. neuma poligruppo. Il neuma monogruppo forma un'unità musicale
indi visibile: si confrontino i neumi 2, 5, 6 dell'esempio 14. Si dice invece poligruppo quel neuma che è suddivisibile almeno in due unità
minori, distinte dal punto di vista grafico e dotate musicalmente di una
certa autonomia, ma unite nel formare l 'unità musicale globale
dell'intero neuma.

English translation:

The neumes 1 and 7, consisting of a single note, are called monosonic neumes.
Neumes 2–6, consisting of multiple notes, are called plurisonic neumes or, more precisely, neume-groups.

The neume-group is, in turn, subdivided into monogroup neumes and polygroup neumes.
A monogroup neume forms an indivisible musical unit: compare neumes 2, 5, and 6 of example 14.

A polygroup neume, on the other hand, is one that can be subdivided into at least two smaller units, distinct from a graphical point of view and possessing a certain musical autonomy, yet united in forming the overall musical unit of the entire neume.

[davidweichiang]

Here's Fr. Columba Kelly's translation (p. 89-91).

1.6.2 Explanation of the term “Neume”

A “Neume” is the graphic image for a musical-acoustic event over a single syllable. In this sense, all the notes over a syllable form only one single neume. The following example is composed of seven neumes:

Neumes 1 and 7 consist of one single note. For this reason they are called single-note neumes.

If the neume consists of more than one note, like neumes 2-6, it is called a multi-note neume, a note-group neume or briefly (and better) a group neume. A group neume can be created in two ways: as a single-group neume and as a multiple-group neume. It is a single-group neume if it forms a musically inseparable unit. In example 14, this is certainly the case for neumes 2, 5 and 6. In comparison to a single-group neume, it is a multiple-group neume when a larger neume shows a grouping of smaller relatively autonomous musical units, that is to say, when it is composed of at least two note groups that attain a certain musical independence.

...

The single notes of a group-neume are called elements. These can appear, depending on their rhythmic importance, as either connected or unconnected, or in the case of a neume of three or more notes, as a partially connected graphic design.

I would suggest that a possible pitfall of using musical terminology for a syntactic unit might give the impression that the two must line up. If in fact they don't have to line up, maybe a made-up term is better.

[rpspringuel]

It's not clear to me from the above if "neume" is supposed to refer explicitly to the Gregorian (square) notes, or if it is meant to encompass the adiastematic (ancient) notation above as well. By putting the identifying numbers inside the staff, I'm led to believe that "neume" is a specifically square note notation. However, looking at the source (and admittedly, I can't read Italian, I just know enough French and Latin to pick out words here and there) it seems like "neume" would apply to each of the lines, just separately. So at any numbered position, there are three neumes: one adiastemiatic neume on line L, another on line E, and a Gregorian neume on the staff lines.

If this latter understanding is correct, then it would appear that the terminological mapping is:

• gabc_A + gabc_B (that is the two taken together) is a (Gregorian) neume
• nabc1_A + nabc1_B (likewise) is a (adiastematic) neume
• nabc2_A + nabc2_B (likewise) is also a (adiastematic) neume

The various classifications of type of neume (single-note, single-group, multiple-group) seem to me to be not terribly useful for us. As our page on the structure points out, we're primarily interested in the visual representation, with the musicological content only influencing, not controlling, our terminology.

Further, it appears that this source is using "element" in a very different way from how we've used it in the past. "Element" for Göschl-Augustoni appears to correspond to a single note, whereas "neume group" corresponds to what we've called an "element" on our webpage. In neither case, however, would gabc_A (or nabc1_A or nabc2_A or ...) map cleanly onto that term. gabc_A could be a neume group/element, or it could be more than one.

Assuming all that understanding is correct, I think @davidweichiang has a good point about the need for some "made-up" terms that we define for ourselves might very well be in order.

[lbssousa]

It's not clear to me from the above if "neume" is supposed to refer explicitly to the Gregorian (square) notes, or if it is meant to encompass the adiastematic (ancient) notation above as well.

From a semiological point of view, the concept of "neume" refers to everything assigned to a lyrics syllable (square notes + adiastematic notation). But following @davidweichiang suggestion about "made-up" terms, I bring new suggestions for our discussion:

• the complete code (gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A|gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B): (Neume) Chain
• each segment gabc_A|nabc_1A|nabc_2A and gabc_B|nabc_1B|nabc_2B: (Neume) Segment
• each element gabc_A and gabc_B: GABC (Neume) Unit or GABC (Neume) Element
• each element nabc_1A, nabc_1B, nabc_2A, nabc_2B: NABC (Neume) Unit or NABC (Neume) Element