Sunday Antiphons

[dmu3tem]

What about the humble hymn?

This looks like being a major casualty in the drive to promote the antiphons at the entrance and communion, especially when coupled with attacks on its use after the final dismisal. Yet, this is still the form of music that congregations are most likely to sing. Are we going to throw away the results of some four decades of encouraging people to sing in this form?

Most of the antiphons and chants - including Responsorial Psalms - that I have seen look pretty anodyne in contrast to the often strong melodies we get with hymns. It is going to be an uphill task teaching congregations a vast new repertoire of this sort. I also agree with Alan Smith's remark that Entrance antiphons, Communion antiphons and Resposorial Psalms all sound very much the same - because basically they use the same musical/textual form. In the face of this their different positions in the service is likely to have only minor effects. There needs to be a variety of musical forms, so I rather like the present mix of some hymns, balanced by a Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation. If we feel we must use entrance and communion antiphons, then should we not explore their conversion into metrial hymn style texts more thoroughly?

The reply to this, of course, is that substituting hymns for antiphons or altering antiphon texts to make them look like hymns is unliturgical; but is this not a case of putting the letter of the 'law' above its spirit? What matters surely is whether what we do works for us as local people in our local environment. After all, are we not supposed to be concerned about declining church attendance?

[musicus]

I also agree with Alan Smith's remark that Entrance antiphons, Communion antiphons and Resposorial Psalms all sound very much the same - because basically they use the same musical/textual form.

If you are referring to Alan29's post on page 1 of this topic, then I happen to know that he is not Alan Smith.

[docmattc]

What about the humble hymn?

This looks like being a major casualty in the drive to promote the antiphons at the entrance and communion, especially when coupled with attacks on its use after the final dismisal. Yet, this is still the form of music that congregations are most likely to sing. Are we going to throw away the results of some four decades of encouraging people to sing in this form?

But is this the form people are most likely to sing because its what they're used to singing. Are we caught in a circular argument? Is the hymn the form we should have been encouraging people to sing? I'm not saying that we should scrap the hymn, but neither should we maintain the status quo simply because it is the status quo.

As John has said, the music is accompanying the ritual taking place. If we would like folk to observe the ritual (for instance the entrance procession), would it not be better to have a musical form which enables them to sing, but doesn't require them to bury their noses in a hymn book in order to do so?

[Southern Comfort]

As John has said, the music is accompanying the ritual taking place. If we would like folk to observe the ritual (for instance the entrance procession), would it not be better to have a musical form which enables them to sing, but doesn't require them to bury their noses in a hymn book in order to do so?

That's exactly it. Joining in visually with the ritual is an important factor.

There are traditionally no hymns in the Roman Rite of Mass, only in the Divine Office. When the four-hymn sandwich came in in the 1960s, presumably in imitation of the German Betsingmesse model, it was recognised that this was very much a pragmatic solution to a pastoral problem: how to get people singing post-Vatican II. For the past 45 years we have been regretting that move, and have been trying to get away from it. The advent of a new translation of the Missal could be an opportunity to do just that.

Gelineau used to talk about the innovation of the only suggested hymn in the post-conciliar Order of Mass (or more strictly in GIRM from 1969 onwards): the thanksgiving hymn after Communion, which is a stand-alone occasion — there is nothing else happening in the rite at that point.

Many of the responses for the Responsorial Psalms in the Lectionary are far too long - and indeed one may wonder whether their compilers understood their function correctly. Whatever the case, it is the psalm that is in prime position, not the response - which is why it is legitimate to proclaim the Responsorial Psalm without any response at all.
— Antiphons are (or should be) long enough to constitute a self-sufficient item on their own. This makes it possible to develop a stand-alone melodic line. The Taizé chants are excellent examples of this: long enough to bear a melody, short enough to be easily memorable. Many of the antiphons in the Simple Gradual are too short. Psalm verses may be used as interludes between repetitions of the antiphon, but are essentially secondary to it. This is the ideal format for Communion processionals.

I'd like to add a further tangential comment to John's remarks about the length of antiphons and responses, which might be an oversimplified analysis. It all depends on how the antiphon or response is constructed. It also depends on what we want the people to perceive.

Over the past 40 years, composers have been tending to produce longer and longer refrains, in contrast with the quintessential form of "a little snippet for the people, then a lengthy verse for me/us, then another little snippet for you, then another lengthy verse for me/us, etc". This has been deliberate, and I believe it arises from an important anthropological consideration.

By making the assembly's part equal in length to that of the cantor or choir, the perception is given that the two are of more equal value than just a little snippet for the assembly. By making the assembly's part noticeably longer than that of the cantor or choir, this perception of value in the assembly's singing is intensified. The composer is saying to the people not just that their part has real value, but that their participation is essential to the liturgical endeavour. "Without you, we simply can't do it." There are many examples of settings that have long refrains and short verses, ranging from Stephen Dean's Prepare Ye to some of the pieces in the Psallite project. The latter has also tried to give the assembly even more to do by introducing mini-antiphons into the midst of the psalm verses.

And there is an art to writing a lengthy antiphon or response which people can grasp at first or second hearing. Some examples are so prolix that they simply do not do this.

So two primary questions would be: how important is it to bolster the assembly's sense of the worth of their participation? And is this a good way to do it? I think you know what my answers would be.

[docmattc]

To the exampes SC gives, I would add selected pieces from Bob Hurd's more recent material, particularly for the Communion procession.

[mcb]

Joining in visually with the ritual is an important factor.

I don't know. (Does "joining in visually" mean "watching" or "being able to see"?) The entrance procession involves the clergy entering the space where the liturgy is to be celebrated. I'm not sure what ritual significance attaches to the act of observing it happen.

For the past 45 years we have been regretting that move, and have been trying to get away from it.

Hmm. Who are we in that statement? Again I'm not sure I agree. Babies and bathwater spring to mind. Hymn-singing, it seems to me, can be a thoroughly successful means of meeting the aims set out in GIRM for the sung elements accompanying the processions. Some hymn texts have a solid scriptural basis, and set to a strong hymn tune can gather and unite the assembly far more effectively than the antiphon and psalm format.

As always, a balanced diet is what's needed. It seems to me the liturgy would be impoverished (and the range of musical forms available would become less expressive and more dreary) if we seriously tried to "get away" from the hymn format altogether. Diversity, in my reckoning, is a good thing in itself; and there's a lot to be said for 'local custom and practice'. The sound of a singing assembly getting its teeth into a good-quality hymn is something you don't find in many other countries (in my limited experience of Mass-going abroad), and to my mind it's a worthy component of the way we celebrate the liturgy.

So two primary questions would be: how important is it to bolster the assembly's sense of the worth of their participation? And is this a good way to do it? I think you know what my answers would be.

Experience tells me that a good singing assembly will engage enthusiastically for a while with almost anything you ask of them, and that enthusiasm runs dry quicker with musical formats that seem to be less rewarding as a means of participation. The trouble with the antiphon and psalm format is that you can find yourself shackled by functionality. If every piece we sang was in the form of a responsorial psalm, it would effectively send out the signal that the musical interest that can feed prayerful engagement is an indulgence to be deprecated.

[docmattc]

Joining in visually with the ritual is an important factor.

I don't know. (Does "joining in visually" mean "watching" or "being able to see"?) The entrance procession involves the clergy entering the space where the liturgy is to be celebrated. I'm not sure what ritual significance attaches to the act of observing it happen.

According to our bishops:

A procession of ministers through and from the assembly expresses visibly the relationship of the priest celebrant and the other ministers to the congregation.

Does it express that relationship visibly if no-one sees it? (If a tree falls in a forest....)

Even further OT, does the procession express a relationship at all, and if so, what? Don't answer that on this thread!

[mcb]

Does it express that relationship visibly if no-one sees it? (If a tree falls in a forest....)

The point of my parenthetical question was that there's perhaps a difference between "being visible" and "being watched fixedly by everyone all at the same time". It's not clear that the latter interpretation is the only one that might make sense.

[John Ainslie]

Joining in visually with the ritual is an important factor.

I don't know. (Does "joining in visually" mean "watching" or "being able to see"?) The entrance procession involves the clergy entering the space where the liturgy is to be celebrated. I'm not sure what ritual significance attaches to the act of observing it happen.

This is interesting. I've often been struck by the order of the clauses in GIRM's description of the Entrance Song:

The purpose of this chant is to
— open the celebration,
— foster the unity of those who have been gathered,
— introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and
— accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

Now if the procession was the most important function, wouldn't it have been put first? Therefore, while I have some sympathy with the view that, to take part in a procession, those taking part, even vicariously, should not have their noses buried in song books, I would regard the other functions of this song as taking priority. The late Lucien Deiss, in his excellent book, Visions of Liturgy and Music for a New Century, says that regulating the length of the Entrance Song strictly according to the time it takes for the priest to reach the altar "reveals a strictly clerical view of the liturgy". He goes on to point out that this song is the act of the whole community, of which the priest is a part. "To remain liturgically authentic, we must affirm that the entrance song performs a ministerial frunction. It must, therefore, last as long as necessary for it to perform that function, that is, all the time it takes for the community to gather spiritually as one and acclaim Christ... whatever time it takes to create a celebrating community."

So two primary questions would be: how important is it to bolster the assembly's sense of the worth of their participation? And is this a good way to do it? I think you know what my answers would be.

Experience tells me that a good singing assembly will engage enthusiastically for a while with almost anything you ask of them, and that enthusiasm runs dry quicker with musical formats that seem to be less rewarding as a means of participation. The trouble with the antiphon and psalm format is that you can find yourself shackled by functionality. If every piece we sang was in the form of a responsorial psalm, it would effectively send out the signal that the musical interest that can feed prayerful engagement is an indulgence to be deprecated.

Quite so. Which is why I pointed out the difference between antiphons and responses, and suggested that further development of musical and textual forms would be welcome. Meanwhile, hymns and other liturgical songs have their place.

[Lakelark]

Before this thread peters out, I would like to express my opinion that it has been one of the most informative and revealing threads on this forum for some time. Thanks to all who have contributed: your comments and quotes have cleared my mind considerably.