GIRM adjustment

[musicus]

In fact, that's what most people here want, right?

EP, you're determined to tar participants here with the loony trendy brush, but you're fantasising. I suggest either you engage in intelligent discussion, or keep your tedious adolescent attempts at provocation to yourself. But do grow up, either way, there's a good chap.

+1

[presbyter]

(Presbyter's had a couple. )

No. But I am straining to keep within the boundaries of good netiquette. I have never been addressed so rudely in my life.

[Southern Comfort]

.........Christopher Walker's Belmont Mass.......... It's a gentle chant setting which seems to be receiving quite wide-spread approval.

The Belmont Mass is an excellent setting, in my opinion. I have only one tiny, tiny, tiny quibble with it in that the priest's chant for the Doxology will sow the seeds of confusion in the minds of colleagues (and probably myself) ...... and especially so if on the following Sunday, we have to sing the Missal chant.

Here's another little quibble. Walker's Belmont Gloria chant oscillates back and forth between two tones, regardless of the literary form of the text. The Psallite chant solution is to use one tone for the first and third paragraphs of the text, and a second tone for the second paragraph. I respectfully suggest that the latter is a rather better solution, which I think could be one reason why parishes in at least six dioceses in England and Wales are already piloting the Psallite Gloria and Eucharistic Acclamations as a way of easing the transition into the new texts.

[presbyter]

why parishes in at least six dioceses in England and Wales are already piloting the Psallite Gloria and Eucharistic Acclamations as a way of easing the transition into the new texts.

Well that's quite some achievement as it's advertised as being available not until August. How does one buy it now?

And so we are back on topic - the Psallite series provides antiphons/chants/canti for the Entrance Song of the Mass that harmonise with GIRM 46.

[Southern Comfort]

I'm informed that quite a lot of folk have pre-ordered the Mass. They will be first in line to receive songbooks and CDs when these arrive in the UK next month. But in the meantime, the distributors are providing, at no charge, PDFs of the congregational version of the Gloria and Eucharistic Acclamations for people to use, unaccompanied (they still work well like that), while they await the full Mass.

[NorthernTenor]

NT - you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.

However, all I think has happened is that the English translation now reflects other translations. The French and the Italians have always used "chant". It just means a liturgical song, in my opinion, and has no specific bearing on Gregorian Chant. It is an umbrella term beneath which any appropriate musical style may shelter.

Quite. Any attempt to pin it down to gregorian chant is the triumph of prejudice over knowledge.

Well, chaps, it may be that in the hurly-burly I haven't managed to get my position across; or perhaps that you're reading into it what you expect to see. So here goes. I haven't suggested that Gregorian chant is all we should sing, or that the new translation of the GIRM mandates this. I have observed its centrality to our liturgical tradition, and pointed out that its primacy has been reiterated by the Church over the last century and more, not the least by the Council that was cited as authority by the liturgical reformers of the later century. In this context, I would suggest that the change of "song" to "chant" is hardly neutral as regards style, especially in the context of the new translation and the Holy Father's persistent encouragement to us to work with the grain of tradition, rather than against or outside of it.

I do not believe that primacy means sola chant, any more than the primacy of scripture in the writings of our faith leads me to say sola scriptura. There are other suitable musics, just as there are other important sources of the faith. However, chant is far from a position of primacy in the music of our parishes (and some of our cathedrals), and the alternative frequently shows little evidence that its composers have heeded the call of the Church to consider its suitability to the ethos of the liturgy, taking chant and polyphony as the foremost examples of music that does fit well.

I hope that's clarified my position, which quite frankly isn't revolutionary or iconoclastic; or if it is, then the Council fathers and the Popes of the 20th and 21st centuries are/where revolutionary iconoclasts, and I'll be the first to run up the red flag and take my place in the charge against the forces of reaction. Fortunately (!) there's change in the air, and I think I'll be able to stay in my pew.

[Calum Cille]

But now I think about it, we do tend to use the word chant for a particular style of sacred song. Not only plainchant, but other styles which (pace Calum!) are unmetered, with the rhythm dictated by speech rhythms.

Prove that and that put it in those terms again, why don't you? Repeating something in a truistic manner does not make it factual. Continuing to present in public one interpretation of chant as if it is an historically proven approach does not make it factual. It is not merely Calum who views chant in such a different way, mcb, although I grant that they do not abound in this forum. A non-nuanced metricised approach was used in the video which presbyter recently brought to our attention.

http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/tutorial/ ... -ewtn.html

Speaking as if other views have no merit - indeed, as if they are just plain wrong - is neither truthful nor candid, mcb. The fact that you believe it, does not make it an objective truth. To write "other styles which are unmetered" is to use a form of verb which a suppositional appraisal of the evidence does not merit. While I accept your right to make arguments for your and others' interpretations of chant, I hope you can accept me not merely standing by and observing you or others speaking as if you are speaking factually when you are not; that is quite different from making an argument.

[mcb]

It was a factual observation (about contemporary compositions in chant idiom; cf. the Psallite Mass, or Chris Walker's Belmont Mass), but it wasn't intended to be a disparaging one. Peace!

[mcb]

I have observed its [i.e. chant's] centrality to our liturgical tradition, and pointed out that its primacy has been reiterated by the Church over the last century and more, not the least by the Council

Thanks NT, I think there's little to disagree with in what you write. The question is over the amount/extent of chant that might be seen as complying with the exhortations of the Council fathers and the strictures of GIRM. You've used the word primacy (and someone in another thread used ubiquity recently, if memory serves). The liturgical documents are perhaps less insistent: all else being equal, pride of place.

I think it means that not every parish might give chant the same centrality. After all, something might have pride of place in your house, yet not take up very much room at all. You're right that there's change in the air, but to my mind it's as likely to involve the reassertion of unaccompanied simple monody as the basic musical vocabulary for liturgy, as it is is to involve mining the treasures of the Graduale Romanum.

[Calum Cille]

It was a factual observation (about contemporary compositions in chant idiom; cf. the Psallite Mass, or Chris Walker's Belmont Mass), but it wasn't intended to be a disparaging one. Peace!

Hmm ... Could be taken either way, mcb ... ! OK, I'll give you that, but this ...

Chant for the rest of us, I'd like to think - not coupled to a Reform of the Reform agenda, or disowning the fruits of the liturgical renewal, but quietly reasserting the idea that simple chant ought to be part of the core vocabulary of Catholic worship.

I still think there needs to be more noise about Latin chant being made a more acceptable mundane part of the liturgy - and about people, who can join in, joining in the singing. Things rarely come into fashion against the wishes of priests and many priests will only allow chant if they think it's easy and if the ordinary bods, particularly the young 'uns, would like it more than something with a beat. Just as the 2:1 proportionalist approach shouldn't be booted out on dodgy grounds when it makes it easier for people to sing communally in a more orderly fashion, so the simplification of chant is another important issue.

Simple chants appear at the expense of harder (but more musically rewarding) ones and simple chants thus make themselves the priest's friend. My view is that dumbing down in this way would be an unnecessary and undesirable development with respect to certain parts of the liturgy, particularly the introit and communion antiphons, genres which include some of the more attractive and least formulaic chants of the whole liturgy. Some Sundays are still named after antiphons like this. Yes, we would have chant in the liturgy but would there be any Gregorian chant in the liturgy?

This is part of why I would stress the importance of psalm-singing when discussing liturgical renewal. If you have congregations used to singing psalms in English, it's very easy to get your group of specialists to add an antiphon (whether Latin or not) onto that for an introit or communion. I know this is going against the norm but it isn't going against the General Instruction of the Roman Missal. The comparative brevity of the Latin text and any repetition of it (particularly during communion) makes the introit and communion antiphons particularly appropriate regular points for Latin in the modern liturgy. Parishioners in my local parish actually sing along to the verses of the responsorial psalm in English with the cantor on account of the psalm tone in use being so easy and heard so frequently and the texts being so metrical, so my instinct is to build on that instinct.

[Calum Cille]

You've used the word primacy (and someone in another thread used ubiquity recently, if memory serves). The liturgical documents are perhaps less insistent: all else being equal, pride of place.

I think it means that not every parish might give chant the same centrality. After all, something might have pride of place in your house, yet not take up very much room at all. You're right that there's change in the air, but to my mind it's as likely to involve the reassertion of unaccompanied simple monody as the basic musical vocabulary for liturgy, as it is is to involve mining the treasures of the Graduale Romanum.

I think you make an important point here, mcb.

116. Ecclesia cantum gregorianum agnoscit ut liturgiae romanae proprium: qui ideo in actionibus liturgicis, ceteris paribus, principem locum obtineat.
"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

First of all, it is clear that it is Gregorian chant being referred to, not chanson de geste, Fenian lay or My Latest Twiddle-Twaddle.

The key matter for the parish priest appears to me to be whether "ceteris paribus" carries or does not carry the implication that alternatives to Gregorian chant having prime place may be preferable rather than merely necessary. This section is quite clear about Gregorian chant being particular to the roman liturgy, ie, it belongs specifically to the liturgy. Centrality or peripherality are not the issue, I agree, but I get no sense from the context that alternatives are ever to be preferred. A lot of people seem to think that 'ceteris paribus, principalem locum obtineat' means something like, "Gregorian chant should be on the TV, unless you've got cable and MTV's available because the music on MTV would be more culturally accessible". However, the Latin actually comes across to me as, "Gregorian chant should be what's on the TV, assuming you've got a TV and it works and it's plugged in, tuned in and all that". This would be quite different. The English doesn't perhaps carry the full weight of the Latin words: "principem locum" reads more like "prime place". "All else being equal" would seem to imply to me that Gregorian chant should be given prime place and that only a significant impediment would cause Gregorian chant not to be given its due place in practice (perhaps the liturgy isn't being sung, or no one knows any Gregorian chant yet, or perhaps only half of the congregation know any, or they're from Milan).

[Eastern Promise]

Oh dear, all these depressingly specific instructions from Rome about chant. I'm with Alan and mcb on this - let's just stick our fingers in our ears and chant "La la la la! Not listening!"

Or we could just say that Marty Haugen is chant. We know we want to!

[alan29]

There's chant and there's chant.
I personally love plainsong, but I have to say that I didn't come across in parishes it in pre Vat II days. Masses by Tozer et al, certainly. Victyorian motets, oh yes. Hymns from the Westminster Hymnal, for sure. There was the annual school mass for St John Baptist de la Salle, but the plainsong for that took weeks and weeks of preparation.
So where is this tradition of chant singing in the parishes that we are meant to work within? Are contemporary modal noodlings meant to satisfy that requirement? (That comment is not meant to be as barbed as it seems and is not directed at any individual. Rather I find myself trying to get my head round a certain mind-set.)

[mcb]

I'm with Alan and mcb on this - let's just stick our fingers in our ears and chant "La la la la! Not listening!"

At the Mass I planned and directed the music for yesterday we had the following chant items:

Celebrant's tropes in the 3rd form of the Penitential Rite
Opening Prayer and Amen
Gospel Acclamation (one from the Graduale, sung by the whole assembly)
Dialogue before and after the Gospel
Prayer over the Gifts and Amen
Preface Dialogue
Preface
Invitation to the Memorial Acclamation
Doxology
Prayer after Communion

(Our other priest also sings the opening greeting and the final blessing and dismissal.)

All of the above, apart from the Gospel Acclamation, and the simple two-note chant accompanying the Kyrie, were from the Missal. All but the Gospel Acclamation are good examples of what I'm getting at in talking about chant in the broad sense being the core vocabulary of our sung music. None of it required 'rehearsing' (we've sung that Gospel Acclamation enough times for the assembly to join in well), it didn't sound like we were consciously producing little works of art. It's just that we sing instead of speaking when we pray at these points in the Mass. Do you object, EP?

[alan29]

I'm with Alan and mcb on this - let's just stick our fingers in our ears and chant "La la la la! Not listening!"

At the Mass I planned and directed the music for yesterday we had the following chant items:

Celebrant's tropes in the 3rd form of the Penitential Rite
Opening Prayer and Amen
Gospel Acclamation (one from the Graduale, sung by the whole assembly)
Dialogue before and after the Gospel
Prayer over the Gifts and Amen
Preface Dialogue
Preface
Invitation to the Memorial Acclamation
Doxology
Prayer after Communion

(Our other priest also sings the opening greeting and the final blessing and dismissal.)

All of the above, apart from the Gospel Acclamation, and the simple two-note chant accompanying the Kyrie, were from the Missal. All but the Gospel Acclamation are good examples of what I'm getting at in talking about chant in the broad sense being the core vocabulary of our sung music. None of it required 'rehearsing' (we've sung that Gospel Acclamation enough times for the assembly to join in well), it didn't sound like we were consciously producing little works of art. It's just that we sing instead of speaking when we pray at these points in the Mass. Do you object, EP?

That's excellent. You are fortunate to have a priest willing to sing his parts of the mass. We don't, so our equivalent list would be very skimpy.