GIRM adjustment

[presbyter]

Oh dear, all these depressingly specific instructions from Rome about chant.

Oh really? Would you like to quote any new specific instructions?

And as for Marty Haugen - of the musical representatives from well over a hundred parishes I have met recently, only one has informed me that Mass of Creation is in their parish repertoire. What makes you think Haugen is so popular?

[Calum Cille]

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.)

Chant is, of course, something that has always been used in the Latin church but, in many parishes, the use of spoken masses, hymns, polyphonic ordinaries and a few other things had resulted in the average parishioner not knowing or using much Gregorian chant. The repertoire may not be alive in any given parish but the repertoire is there to be sung.

It is rather a statement on the clergy post-Vatican II (especially if their own parish experience of chant was very limited) that 'pride of place' would be effectively ignored or interpreted as comparable in status to a wedding photo in the living room that is rarely looked at. I have the picture of a sixties movement stripping the church entirely of its traditional suit of language and donning the tie-die of the vernacular. Perhaps there is now a growing recognition that the suit of Latin chant is perhaps appropriate clothing, particularly for more formal occasions. However, the fact that Gregorian chant is supposed to get pride of place does not mean that it was intended that all other musical genres be excluded.

Whether or not Gregorian chant is fashionable today, clothing oneself in the traditional can often give a sense of belonging to something older and greater than oneself as an individual. While the rebellious instinct might oppose that, such a sense is nevertheless one aspect of being a Catholic which a mature soul should recognise. Catholic traditions may seem alien to some western Europeans today but that is surely not reason to jettison them unless one believes that such western Europeans should have no ancient traditions. There is the question of whether Catholics should be cultured people or not with respect to their own musical tradition or whether that tradition is to be dumbed down to the content of 19th and 20th centuries compositions only. This is not a matter of educating people but a matter of keeping a tradition healthy and allowing it to flourish. The idea that someone shouldn't be entering an alien culture when they enter a church is a ridiculous argument against traditional practices: in Scotland, one might only wear a kilt for the odd ceremony or 'do' but it isn't an alien item just because one doesn't wear it every day.

[Calum Cille]

And as for Marty Haugen - of the musical representatives from well over a hundred parishes I have met recently, only one has informed me that Mass of Creation is in their parish repertoire. What makes you think Haugen is so popular?

Quite right and I don't see the point in criticising any composer even if their music is indeed popular; rather, it is various ecclesiastical authorities who bear the responsibility. While the various authorities do not produce a practical definition of what sacred music is for composers, composers effectively have technical carte-blanche and so too have the priests and lay who would use their music. I don't see any such definition on its way, especially a worldwide definition, considering the diversity of musical practice in parishes across the world. It ill behoves a newly-wed to tell me, "I didn't want that kind of music at my wedding," if they had previously told me that I had carte-blanche or that I was to use my own judgement. The various authorities are unwilling to produce such a practical definition and it ill behoves them to complain about the music in parishes if they will not be explicit about what they want rather than woolly and therefore all-inclusive in practical terms. I feel no desire to criticise another composer in a situation where everything is up for grabs, especially when one throws in the concept of being a worldwide church which, in parts, dances and drums it's way into the liturgy.

[Nick Baty]

... the average parishioner not knowing or using much Gregorian chant. The repertoire may not be alive in any given parish but the repertoire is there to be sung. It is rather a statement on the clergy post-Vatican II...

Could one argue that it's more a statement on the clergy pre-Vatican II when music of any kind was so rare at Mass – often just at the latest Mass on a Sunday? In my home parish there were five Sunday Masses – there was only music at the11 o'clock! For many of us, singing of any sort only happened at afternoon devotions.

[NorthernTenor]

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.)

Alan,

You comment raises three issues – the extent of chant singing in parishes before the Mass of Paul V; the nature of liturgical chant; and the competency of the modern chant-style settings we’re beginning to see.

I haven’t seen a survey of chant singing in parishes pre-Novus Ordo that isn’t incomplete, anecdotal or circumstantial. That isn’t surprising – there was no reason for anyone to put in the legwork required to compile detailed statistics over time. That said, the Liturgical Movement seems to have had an impact in this respect in many places in the UK, through groups like the Society of Saint Gregory and educational initiatives in Catholic schools and training colleges. The range of anecdote suggests that the impact was not uniform. My own is of my experience of the chanted ordinary in a South East London parish of the early 1980’s, where the congregation sang the chant when given the chance with what would now pass for enthusiasm. Clearly, Catholics were used to singing Ordinary chants in that part of the world at least. Even now, older members of the congregation are far from uniformly silent in the places I sing the Ordinary.

Granted, other parishes, fed on a diet of low mass and choral ordinaries, had a different experience; but the point of the Liturgical Movement was the reform of the layman’s engagement with the liturgy, and reform would not have been thought necessary in the absence of problems.

Your comments raise the issue of the nature of liturgical chant in two respects: in relation to modern, non-Gregorian chant-like settings; and indirectly when you speak of the time taken to learn the chants for a particular mass. Music that would generally be labelled chant covers a multitude of approaches and traditions. The Council unambiguously gave primacy in the Roman Rite to Gregorian chant, but it also allowed – even encouraged – other musical styles, so long as those who write or select them think carefully about their appropriateness to the liturgy, taking Gregorian as the foremost model of suitability. I therefore believe it to be misguided to take an all-or-nothing approach – Gregorian with all the Propers from the Graduale Romanum or something else entirely – rather than accept the meditative and practical qualities of the simpler styles with which the likes of Christopher Walker and the Psalite Group are now experimenting. So, too, one should distinguish between the Propers that are the domain of the Cantor or Schola and those chants that are the business of all. The GR Propers are a glory of our tradition, but one would not expect everyone to sing them; or all Scholas to have the resource to sing them every week. Oher chants – Gregorian and otherwise – are available, that make the meditative beauty of chant available across a range of singing-skills.

As to the quality of the new chant-style settings: these things take time, and we’re still at an exploratory stage. If you think you can do better, I strongly urge you to help fulfil the vision of the Liturgical Movement and the Council by doing so.

[Calum Cille]

It is rather a statement on the clergy post-Vatican II ... that 'pride of place' would be effectively ignored or interpreted as comparable in status to a wedding photo in the living room that is rarely looked at.

Could one argue that it's more a statement on the clergy pre-Vatican II when music of any kind was so rare at Mass – often just at the latest Mass on a Sunday? In my home parish there were five Sunday Masses – there was only music at the11 o'clock! For many of us, singing of any sort only happened at afternoon devotions.

Well, not for their interpretation of 'pride of place' but good point except that some of the post-Vatican II clergy were also pre-Vatican clergy! This is getting complicated rather quickly ...

I appreciate that the current tendency is to put the responsibility onto someone else but I nonetheless think that, whatever the historical forces preceding Vatican II, the actions that followed Vatican II are the responsibility of those who acted after Vatican II. Any failure to introduce anything warranted by council documents was their responsibility just as much as the introduction of anything was their responsibility, and having Gregorian chant was in many places seen as being much the same as having Latin by those responsible for the changes.

We may wish to concur with their decision not to have Gregorian chant given pride of place, and that would be fine with me, as long as that would be formally established. However, it hasn't been formally established, far from it, and as a result, the parish cantor/composer/musician can find him or herself unnecessarily at odds with the priest in certain parishes, feeling that he or she should be following the council teaching but confronted by something seemingly contradictory from the parish priest, up to and including a point blank refusal to sing the priest's parts even at that Sunday mass. This is an undesirable state of affairs. The only Gregorian chant I have heard in my local parish, for example, is the very occasional Per ipsum in English and the Lumen Christi at Easter in English. The choir also has one short Latin item. This really can't be laid at the feet of pre-Vatican II people - unless they are also post-Vatican II people of course!

[Nick Baty]

This really can't be laid at the feet of pre-Vatican II people - unless they are also post-Vatican II people of course!

Yes, take your point, entirely, CC.
Mine was simply that, with some notable exceptions, I really can't find evidence of a golden age of chant, pre-Vat II.
In fact, the whole idea of singing the Mass (in any genre) was quite a shock for many.
We have travelled a long way in the last 40 years – and we still have a long way to go.

[alan29]

Nt
I won't quote or comment on your whole post. Seems to me that it is the modal nature of chant that is part of its distinctiveness. Of course that is shared with folk music. Maybe we should be returning to folk Masses as a more resonant echo of chant.
I don't advocate an all or nothing approach to chant. Just that whatever music is chosen, in whatever style, that it is appropriate for that community so that they can "do" it well enough to be worthy of the worship of God. Other than that, I have no problem with any style - Thrash Metal Benediction, anyone?

[alan29]

This really can't be laid at the feet of pre-Vatican II people - unless they are also post-Vatican II people of course!

Yes, take your point, entirely, CC.
Mine was simply that, with some notable exceptions, I really can't find evidence of a golden age of chant, pre-Vat II.
In fact, the whole idea of singing the Mass (in any genre) was quite a shock for many.
We have travelled a long way in the last 40 years – and we still have a long way to go.

Where it happened it was in monasteries and cathedrals, where they had the time etc to do it. And that is to be expected with a genre that was developed in those places. I sometimes think that those are the kinds of celebrations some of the legislators have in mind.

[NorthernTenor]

Nt
I don't advocate an all or nothing approach to chant. Just that whatever music is chosen, in whatever style, that it is appropriate for that community so that they can "do" it well enough to be worthy of the worship of God. Other than that, I have no problem with any style - Thrash Metal Benediction, anyone?

It's a shame you haven't addressed the key points raised, Alan. Do you think that:
(i) Church teaching (including the most recent Council) is neutral on style?
(ii) Our parishes are not capable of simple chant?
(ii) Liturgy should be brought to the community or vice-versa?

[Calum Cille]

This really can't be laid at the feet of pre-Vatican II people - unless they are also post-Vatican II people of course!

Mine was simply that, with some notable exceptions, I really can't find evidence of a golden age of chant, pre-Vat II.
In fact, the whole idea of singing the Mass (in any genre) was quite a shock for many.

Where it happened it was in monasteries and cathedrals, where they had the time etc to do it. And that is to be expected with a genre that was developed in those places. I sometimes think that those are the kinds of celebrations some of the legislators have in mind.

Yes, I wonder that too, sometimes, Alan. The phrase "pie in the sky" comes to mind, as does the word "tokenism", when I think of the educational programme that would be required to have Gregorian chant in today's ordinary parishes at the same level as some cathedrals. You're dead right, Nick, there is far to go - if we're actually going to go there. A lot comes down to musical literacy or the willingness to embark on a long-term memorisation project, and we're not going to get either with much ease in today's world. The golden age of chant (yes, folks, there actually was one, that's where we got this huge repertoire from) did depend on choirs being able to memorise chants or read music. We should remember that, whatever parish we go to in Greece or Egypt, etc, the liturgy will be chanted. The Copts in Egypt have always memorised the chant and today only ever read the verbal text at most. If they can have this in every parish in Egypt, then the problem in western Europe is, at root, attitude. There would have to be a huge cultural change in western Europe, either within the choir (memorisation) or in the schools (musical literacy for singers) for such change to be possible. What we're facing is a huge mass of simpler chants (and therefore less musically rewarding chants) flooding parish liturgy on account of a cultural lack of willingness to memorise, or lack of ability to sight-read. Since I don't believe I can practically effect a huge change in the ability of a choir to read music, I favour memorisation as the more practical approach to building up a good repertoire of monodic chants. While we refuse to make use of our memory, and while choirs can't sight-sing, we can only expect a relative poverty of chant in our parishes.

[Nick Baty]

...the ability of a choir to read music... ....and while choirs can't sight-sing...

That's supposing we see chant as being primarily the song of the choir.
Isn't much of it the song of the assembly?

[Calum Cille]

Other than that, I have no problem with any style - Thrash Metal Benediction, anyone?

Why not, when Germany can have this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Lom28KSlg

[Calum Cille]

...the ability of a choir to read music... ....and while choirs can't sight-sing...

That's supposing we see chant as being primarily the song of the choir.
Isn't much of it the song of the assembly?

Well, I see Gregorian chant as being the song of the assembly, meaning priest, choir and congregation; but it's not too hard for the priest to learn his tones, nor for the congregation to learn the ordinary. Much of the educational effort would be on the part of the cantor and choir who would have to learn a whole load of proper chants.

[alan29]

Nt
I don't advocate an all or nothing approach to chant. Just that whatever music is chosen, in whatever style, that it is appropriate for that community so that they can "do" it well enough to be worthy of the worship of God. Other than that, I have no problem with any style - Thrash Metal Benediction, anyone?

It's a shame you haven't addressed the key points raised, Alan. Do you think that:
(i) Church teaching (including the most recent Council) is neutral on style?
(ii) Our parishes are not capable of simple chant?
(ii) Liturgy should be brought to the community or vice-versa?

i) No I don't. Neither is it prescriptive, neither is it set in stone (Trent's views on music didn't put Viennese composers off.)
ii) I wouldn't want to generalise. It will depend on there being someone capable of teaching them. I am sure you wouldn't count singing the odd 2-note Amen as fulfilling our leaders' wishes. That surely would be little more than a peremptory nod in the direction of our heritage.
iii) I don't exactly know what you mean, but I am as a rule suspicious of black/white, either/or statements. they often lead to (portray) the kind of polarisation that has caused much pain in the recent and not so recent past. However, for what its worth, by its very definition Liturgy is the people's work, ie something that belongs to them.