Free Liturgical Music (Chant, Resp. Psalms, Alleluias, etc.)

[JW]

And, further to my having used a Chabanel psalm at the Dawn Mass, this was because I could not find a setting of the correct psalm and response in any "approved" English versions in my posession. Can anyone point me towards one please?

There are "approved" versions on the following free websites: Queen of Peace choir: http://www.qopchoir.com/ourmusic.html and Andrew Kooi An Di http://www.singakad.com/christmas.html#ChristmasDawn

I've used settings from both of these sources in the past. Both settings have to be accompanied from a lead sheet, which may put off less confident musicians, QOP (Queen of Peace choir) tell me that there are no accompaniments available. Their settings are quite meditative and melodic.

IMHO Andrew Kooi An Di's word settings are weak and I change them if I use one of his psalms. His music is often characterised by strong base lines and harmonic progressions, though with an apparent Chinese influence. The response is set to repeat twice to enable the setting to be a more complete melody as opposed to a fragment.

[AntoineDaniel]

(1) Don't let the US BCDW hear you say this! They would not agree at all with your interpretation of GIRM 391:
Nothing here about the diocesan bishop as far as regulating translations is concerned. And there was nothing in the US Appendix to the previous incarnations of GIRM either.

In the USA, we have "Adaptations" to the GIRM.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual, or, Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons ; including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.

Furthermore, according to the Secretariat of Divine Worship at the USCCB, once a Diocesan Bishop has approved a "variant" Psalm translation, it can be used in ANY diocese of the USA.

(2) They are not interchangeable, and musical settings should reflect their different purposes.

I am not suggesting (and would never suggest) that a Responsorial Psalm should replace the Communion Proper.

However, in the USA, 99.99% of all parishes choose (abuse?) the "alius cantus aptus" option.

99.99% of the Parishes in the USA choose songs like "Eat This Bread," "One Bread, One Body," "Be Not Afraid," and "Be Not Afraid" to sing at Communion. Very few sing the Communion Antiphon as found in the Graduale Romanum.

Much of the Psalter is very appropriate for Communion, and I would argue that singing Responsorial Psalms (especially with easy Antiphons that folks can remember and sing while in the Communion line) would be much better than "Eat This Bread," "One Bread, One Body," "Be Not Afraid," "Look Beyond The Bread You Eat," and the other Broadway Tunes that are sung during Communion at 95% of Parishes in the USA. Would you agree?

I, personally, have never done this, but I've seen it done at many parishes in the USA. Also, some Seminaries do this.

[mcb]

and the other Broadway Tunes that are sung during Communion

Jeffrey, I'm sorry you reached for the insult. Welcome to this forum, but let's be polite to each other.

Martin Barry.

[Southern Comfort]

In the USA, we have "Adaptations" to the GIRM.

In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual, or, Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons ; including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.

Jeffrey, this is US GIRM 87, which refers to music settings that may be used. We were talking about the competence of bishops to stipulate which translation may be used (hence GIRM 391). Not the same thing, although it may be in practice where collections of settings are approved for use which happen to use other unapproved translations.

Furthermore, according to the Secretariat of Divine Worship at the USCCB, once a Diocesan Bishop has approved a "variant" Psalm translation, it can be used in ANY diocese of the USA.

I think you'll find, as above, that BCDW were talking about music settings, not psalm translations. I'm pretty sure that BCDW are not going to say that they think vast numbers of diocesan psalm translations in circulation would be OK. Additionally, they are moving towards Grail IV as the norm for everyone. NAB will be phased out.

Much of the Psalter is very appropriate for Communion

Don't think that anyone would disagree with that.

and I would argue that singing Responsorial Psalms (especially with easy Antiphons that folks can remember and sing while in the Communion line) would be much better than...

Here's where I think we part company. A Responsorial Psalm definitely ain't the same thing as a Communion Processional Psalm, despite the superficial similarity in musical form. Responsorial Psalms are designed for singing sitting down, Communion Processional Psalms are designed for singing standing up and processing. Responsorial Psalms are brief meditations, Communion Processional Psalms are much lengthier. Responsorial Psalms are stand-alone (actually 'sit-alone'!), Communion Processional Psalms accompany an action. And so on. This should affect the kind of music that is used.

[AntoineDaniel]

Jeffrey, I'm sorry you reached for the insult. Welcome to this forum, but let's be polite to each other.

I meant no insult. Why do you view my words as an insult? (serious question) I don't feel a need to insult or put down anyone else.

That being said, my degree is in Music Theory, and so I feel very comfortable classifying musical styles.

Without question, much Broadway-style music is used in the USA Churches. However, whether this is a bad thing is a completely different question.

I am not really interested in broaching that question on this thread, as I was merely sharing some free resources. I feel a discussion like that would be better placed on another thread, don't you?

But again, I would disagree that the mere classification of musical styles is an "insult."

[Calum Cille]

AntoineDaniel,

I find your choice of term (Broadway Tunes) very interesting, particularly because I find you more than once advising people that you have a degree in music theory.

Some people might contend that use of musical analysis does not in itself necessitate limiting one to describing the style of hymns like "One bread, one body" as more inherently possessing the nature of a showtune rather than a general pop song. The category of MOR, which would include a lot of showtunes, could easily be used to describe "One bread, one body" and the hymn could also fall into categories like soft rock or easy-listening.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6xIdDYiA9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsjSitIM_Ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9muzyOd4Lh8

The styles of most of the modern popular hymns in the US might not be best (and narrowly) defined in terms of Broadway alone. Does the following hymn sound like Jerome Kern or like something from the 70s pop charts composed by someone influenced by folk, pop, rock, classical and bluegrass as Wikipedia says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzp83SWRNZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Go6I2_PpBU

Hoagy Carmichael wasn't a success on Broadway. ABBA were only a success on Broadway after European chart success. Does the musical hook of the following hymn (not quite knees up but definitely shuffling from side to side) relate more closely to Broadway or to pop or doo-wop or jazz?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CSjDC18b0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27E7rfjtSRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPFduf2XaYM

The epithet "Broadway Tunes" perhaps carries much stronger overtones of in-your-face, all-singing, all-dancing entertainment than a broader category such as MOR / soft rock / easy listening. Proponents of a chant-and-polyphony-only approach might find such overtones useful in attempting to argue the inappropriateness of other forms of music in the Roman rite. Not all Broadway songs are knees-up numbers, of course, but that fact wouldn't necessarily remove the overtones of such a comparison for many people and "Look beyond" is not what I would call in-your-face, all-singing, all-dancing entertainment music.

While I respect your decision to name numbers of modern popular hymns as Broadway Tunes, I can see reasons for criticising such a label as being restrictive, inadequate and loaded. I don't see the musical trends of 60s and 70s pop culture as emanating primarily from Broadway; I rather see that Broadway has tended more to absorb popular musical styles and trends than create them. Have the composers of the most popular post-Vatican II hymns been more generally inspired by popular music and less specifically inspired by Broadway or is the converse true? While I don't see comparison with Broadway music as an insult (as I appreciate the talent of musicians of many musical styles), I feel that an explanation for your choice of stylistic labelling would be informative for people interested in this discussion on account of the nature of your education.

Congratulations on your new mass setting, by the way.

[Calum Cille]

AntoineDaniel,

Sorry, those links should have been

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6xIdDYiA9A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISWOrI0WaLs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9muzyOd4Lh8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzp83SWRNZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Go6I2_PpBU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CSjDC18b0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsjSitIM_Ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPFduf2XaYM

[nazard]

Be careful here. The term MOR has an interesting Wikipaedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_road_%28music%29. As a term, it doesn't seem to be free of emotion either. It was a term unfamiliar to me, which is why I had to look it up. (My first thought was that it was something to do with the sea off Wales.)

I'm not sure that labelling styles is particularly helpful. The problem is to find a style that repels no one. Someone suggested on this board a few weeks back that polyphony should be confined to concert halls and no longer be used in church services: presumably the writer is, to some degree, repelled by it. I am certainly repelled by a proportion of music. I am quite broad minded about this: a lot of different styles repel me, some more than others.

All these terms like MOR and "Easy Listening" seem to be associated with the elderly's listening habits. We seem to ignore the heavy-ish rock our children consider to be pop music (Deo gratias) in our choice of styles we use for church music. This can hardly be a good idea. Children can see that Granny can have her pop music in church but Grandchild can not. The "little darlings" in our parish often refer to mass as a "Grandmothers' Knees Up."

If we were to go the heavy rock route, would we not just be perpetuating the problem? I would like to see some style evolve which is associated with religion and acceptable to all. Is there any chance of this ever happening?

[Nick Baty]

I would like to see some style evolve which is associated with religion and acceptable to all. Is there any chance of this ever happening?

Perhaps this will only happen with time. The Council of Trent wanted to ban polyphony – Palestrina may have helped overturn this with several of his Mass settings, one of which may have been Missa Papae Marcelli. We were only asked to sing the Mass a century ago. We have only done so for 40 years – a very short time in the history of our church and of our liturgy. In that time we have tried very few styles – how many people have even heard of Huijbers, Lowenthal, Oomen etc, let along sung their music? Perhaps we simply need to continue on our journey.

[musicus]

I would like to see some style evolve which is associated with religion and acceptable to all. Is there any chance of this ever happening?

Absolutely no chance at all, I would say. Consider all the styles that have been considered appropriate for divine worship down the centuries. Ask yourself why new styles kept arising. Also, none has ever been acceptable to all. I suspect that any musical 'style' is in fact an extremely complex outcome of a large number of contributory factors, and, moreover, factors that do not stand still, but rather change over time. See, among others, Derek Scott's Musical Style and Social Meaning (in the Ashgate Contemporary Thinkers on Critical Musicology Series).

I suspect that any attempt to impose, however benignly, a particular musical style on worship, is inherently doomed to failure - whether that style be the chant, Classicism, serialism, Nashville, rock, St Louis Jesuits, Anglican chant, Taizé, Broadway (!) or whatever. IMHO, no single one of these has any claim to be The One, however much anyone, however exalted, might wish it were so.

[Calum Cille]

Be careful here. The term MOR has an interesting Wikipaedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_of_the_road_%28music%29. As a term, it doesn't seem to be free of emotion either. It was a term unfamiliar to me, which is why I had to look it up. (My first thought was that it was something to do with the sea off Wales.)

Nazard,

Perhaps if one regards theatrical music as inappropriate for liturgy, and modern American hymnology as appropriate, one might feel that describing modern American hymnology as stylistically related to Broadway music is disrespectful in some way. What I'd like to hear from AntoineDaniel is his (educated) reasons for choosing the label that he did, as I'm sure I would find them interesting. I'm very familiar with the MOR category of music as are most of my contemporaries. Neither AntoineDaniel nor I have raised the question of emotion here although I can imagine good reasons for you to do so.

You make a good point about the inter-generational difficulties of pandering musically to the people. I note that certain Orthodox churches regard the liturgy as the domain of chant while fostering all other styles of music for non-liturgical spiritual song at non-liturgical events. In this way, the liturgy does not alter its musical style much from era to era while the faithful get opportunity to express themselves in the music of their own day. There are perhaps insufficient occasions when English-speaking Catholics gather to sing to God without the mass, and I wonder if this is one factor behind the modern English-speaking Catholic's demand for their favourite musical style in the liturgy.

[nazard]

Mea culpa. The impression that I got was that the term "Broadway Tunes" had upset you. It just goes to show the danger of making assumptions.

I have seen so much infighting and ill feeling over musical styles at mass that I have grown to sympathise with the Orthodox position you describe. My own preferred music options for mass are now:

First choice: no music whatsoever.

And, a long way second: the Kyriale and Graduale.

Just the mention of either of these is usually enough to get many hackles rising.

[John Ainslie]

You make a good point about the inter-generational difficulties of pandering musically to the people. I note that certain Orthodox churches regard the liturgy as the domain of chant while fostering all other styles of music for non-liturgical spiritual song at non-liturgical events. In this way, the liturgy does not alter its musical style much from era to era while the faithful get opportunity to express themselves in the music of their own day.

This is a very interesting suggestion, and one reflected in the history of church music. The carol tradition developed because there was room for non-liturgical religious music outside the chancel, whose step and/or rood screen marked the boundary between the liturgical and the non-liturgical. The oratory tradition founded by St Philip Neri was to give scope for non-liturgical music and devotions outside the liturgy - and Palestrina was one of his clients (in the confessional too). The British Catholic hymn tradition grew up for use principally at Rosary and Benediction, even though the Westminster Hymnal was nominally structured on office hymns - hymns were never heard at Mass, even Latin hymns, until the 1950s.

But Pope Pius X declared in his 1903 Tra le sollecitudini that the Gregorian chant hitherto reserved for the clergy and chierichetti (all-male choirs and servers dressed up to look like 'little clerics') belonged to all the people. If the chancel step and rood screen are no more, is everyone in the Roman rite necessarily bound to a particular musical culture developed in Rome up to the eighth century and modified by Franks before being reimported to Rome about the tenth century - and one designed for performance by quasi-clerical choirs, not by the laity? If the participation of the laity is to be fully re-integrated into the liturgy, it ought to require a process of acculturation that includes their musical culture. But what if their musical culture is no longer Christian or even religious?

[Calum Cille]

The impression that I got was that the term "Broadway Tunes" had upset you.

Nazard,

It just goes to show the semantic flexibility of language. If AntoineDaniel posted a message on this topic when he wasn't expending himself composing and/or publishing for free, I would certainly find it helpful, although he statedly feels such a discussion would be better placed on another thread.