Easter Alleluia

[NorthernTenor]

...
It is a tragedy that those who ought to know better continue to clutch at anything with which to beat those who have failed to heed their lost cause, even straw. The move from G to A at that point no more militates against a feminine ending than the opening of the ICEL Sanctus requires us to place a stress on the 2nd note - no-one with an ounce of musicianship or experience of chant would do either.

Whatever do you mean - who is beating whom?

I second your implied suggestion that there has been some lousy musicianship around.

Well, the confusion's my own fault for attempting to combine metaphors (never a good idea): clutching at straws and any stick with which to beat the new, improved translation. I can say as a musician whose patrimony gives him some experience of chanting the vernacular that the G-A movement on “ended” doesn’t remotely imply a stress on the second syllable. Three possibilities follow from this: FT isn’t a musician; she is, but lacks experience of vernacular chant; or she’s just determined to find fault in illustration of a non-musical point she wishes to make. I believe from what she has written here previously that it may be a combination of two and three, though I’m happy to apologise if I discover to my surprise that it’s one.

[NorthernTenor]

Setting aside the rudeness, I am wondering how much musicianship should be required from a worshipping community in something that is expressly meant to be sung by all.

Alan,

No more or less rude than:

In which of the ICEL member nations is English spoken in such an affected manner that endED is the correct pronunciation of this world?

and:

It is a tragedy that our bishops decided to allow this stuff to appear in our Missal, when it was known a long time in advance that it was inadequate.

.

As for the musicianship required of a priest, deacon or layperson to sing syllabic vernacular chant - I would agree with you: not that much, and certainly much less than that needed to sing much of the stuff churned out by contemporary catholic liturgical composers. It will help if there is (a) good will and absence of any contrary agenda (b) a willingness in clergy, cantors and choir to do it justice and lead the congregation in doing so. In the long run, too, initiatives such as that at Allen Hall to ensure clergy are comfortable singing their parts of the mass, and competent to do so, can only help.


And incidentally, SC should learn not to confuse his having made an assertion with fact and knowledge of it. It’s not unknown for these things to differ

[contrabordun]

any stick with which to beat the new, improved translation

Whether the translation is improved or not is beside the point, which was whether the missal chant setting of it is optimal. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that it is possible to sing this elegantly, I think it's stretching it to say that it doesn't "remotely imply" a stress. FWIW, I think that if you tried it out with a dozen randomly selected priests, you would get end-DED far more often than not, which if true would IMO justify the criticism and the point that a move to the A on "End" would be more elegant.

[NorthernTenor]

any stick with which to beat the new, improved translation

Whether the translation is improved or not is beside the point, which was whether the missal chant setting of it is optimal. Whilst it is undoubtedly true that it is possible to sing this elegantly, I think it's stretching it to say that it doesn't "remotely imply" a stress. FWIW, I think that if you tried it out with a dozen randomly selected priests, you would get end-DED far more often than not, which if true would IMO justify the criticism and the point that a move to the A on "End" would be more elegant.

My point, Paul, was precisely that attitudes to the translation seem to be driving musical judgement.

With respect to the settings, I grant you that many clergy suffer from our seminaries’ failings in musical formation, tho’ Allen Hall, for one, is now trying to address that problem, and a recent graduate of Wonersh I know sings the priest’s parts accurately. I don’t have quite your low opinion of priestly singing ability, though, and believe that problems will usually be susceptible to some coaching from a sympathetic DoM or cantor, given good will and a willingness to learn. I don’t believe we’d do anyone a favour by chasing the lowest common denominator.

[contrabordun]

My point, Paul, was precisely that attitudes to the translation seem to be driving musical judgement

"Seeming" is in the eye of the beholder and whilst I wouldn't say this has never been true of any of the comments on the music of the new translation, I didn't see anything in FT's comment that would justify it in this case.

In this specific case, you can argue as much as you like that it is possible to sing it elegantly and musically, and I'll agree with you. I would also be delighted to be proven wrong in my little thought experiment regarding priestly musicianship. But the fact that you can avoid it doesn't excuse the presence of the trap. It is just an abuse of goodwill and a willingness to learn (to say nothing of the probably-free-of-charge time of a friendly DoM or cantor) when they are applied to save a poor piece of word setting from its own failings.

The actual complaint is that G-A-A would have been better than G-G-A (in the sense that for a given input of effort and talent you get a more naturally stressed vocal line). All your comments to date amount to either (1) that FT's original post didn't mean what it said, (and by implication that the argument it raised did not need to be addressed) or (2) that, with effort, a singer could compensate for the problem. The latter implies that you do accept that the printed setting is inferior to the suggested alternative.

So, I'm genuinely mystified as to why you are defending the printed setting, and would like to know on what grounds you're doing so?

I'm also in favour of avoiding the lowest common denominator, but I don't see anybody proposing it.

[festivaltrumpet]

...
It is a tragedy that those who ought to know better continue to clutch at anything with which to beat those who have failed to heed their lost cause, even straw. The move from G to A at that point no more militates against a feminine ending than the opening of the ICEL Sanctus requires us to place a stress on the 2nd note - no-one with an ounce of musicianship or experience of chant would do either.

Whatever do you mean - who is beating whom?

I second your implied suggestion that there has been some lousy musicianship around.

Well, the confusion's my own fault for attempting to combine metaphors (never a good idea): clutching at straws and any stick with which to beat the new, improved translation. I can say as a musician whose patrimony gives him some experience of chanting the vernacular that the G-A movement on “ended” doesn’t remotely imply a stress on the second syllable. Three possibilities follow from this: FT isn’t a musician; she is, but lacks experience of vernacular chant; or she’s just determined to find fault in illustration of a non-musical point she wishes to make. I believe from what she has written here previously that it may be a combination of two and three, though I’m happy to apologise if I discover to my surprise that it’s one.

I am stunned at what has been read into my question which simply was not present, and also at Northern Tenor's prodigious apparent talent at determining a poster's gender! My question was simply based on my observation that, as other's have concurred, the G-A-A solution would have been a better solution.

I would venture that the accusations directed at me are unwarranted and offensive. I await Northern Tenor's unreserved, and public apology.

[quaeritor]

Setting aside (he wrote, thus adopting the phrase of the moment, but in doing so forfeiting the opportunity to make a rare correct use of the expression "begging the question" - while at the same time inadvertently revealing his gender) the interesting albeit prolonged discussion of matters not wholly related to the topic (and is it necessary to quote an entire post just to be picky about a single phrase? - What happened to the "delete" key?) and returning to the earlier comments of VML and John Ainslie I am thinking of treating the proclamation of the Alleluia as separate from the singing of the verses-with-response, and so "starting again" with the simple Alleluia followed by the first verse and so on, so that the assembly will not be misled into trying to repeat the complicated Alleluia as the response after each verse. (Phew! - I thought that sentence would never end!)

Does anyone think that is a reasonable and practical compromise? - I'd be glad of the comments of the liturgically more knowledgeable.

Q

[Southern Comfort]

I am thinking of treating the proclamation of the Alleluia as separate from the singing of the verses-with-response, and so "starting again" with the simple Alleluia followed by the first verse and so on, so that the assembly will not be misled into trying to repeat the complicated Alleluia as the response after each verse. (Phew! - I thought that sentence would never end!)

Does anyone think that is a reasonable and practical compromise? - I'd be glad of the comments of the liturgically more knowledgeable.

Q

Q, I think that is an eminently sensible pastoral solution. It would be bizarre to use that triple Alleluia as the response each time, and no assembly that I can think of would find it at all convincing.

The Triple Alleluia comes from a previous incarnation of the rite, and the Alleluia Psalm comes from the current incarnation. Trying to mix the two doesn't seem at all practicable.

[quaeritor]

Thanks, SC - good to know that I won't be riding roughshod over any cherished tradition - I'm just slightly worried that the assembly might think that the choir are leading some sort of revolt: "You sang the wrong Alleluia, Fr!"

Q

[NorthernTenor]

You have my full apology, FT - on re-examining your post I see I attributed motives to it that are evident in SC's drip-feed of sniping, but not in your comment here. The underlying question remains, though: why should a musician with anything like extensive experience of vernacular chant - and I grant that hostility, apathy and simple ignorance have limited this amongst Catholic parish musicians - think that a rising tone on a two syllable phrase-ending implies an accent on the second one? It's not that this issue doesn't merit your strength of complaint - rather, it's a non-problem. It's a simple example of a feminine ending, in which you shade away the second note. This is a natural and obvious thing to do in syllabic chant, which goes with the flow of the natural word stress, and the rising tone serves to accentuate it. True, as Contrabordun observes, there may be priests out there whose lack of formation and inexperience may lead them to to stress the second syllable, but that's just a matter of poor practice, if not downright carelessness, and is more an issue for a thread entitled "how can we help improve the vernacular chanting skills of of parish clergy?"

[alan29]

"how can we help improve the vernacular chanting skills of of parish clergy?"

..... by not putting stumbling blocks and man-traps in front of them when there is no musical reason?

[NorthernTenor]

Paul,

There is no trap - please see my reply to FT above. For a minimum of effort we can follow similar melodic patterns to the Latin settings (I speak here of syllabic, not melismatic chant), with no loss of musicality or word sense. All your comments to date imply that we shouldn't expect anyone to think about the language and particular words they're chanting, and that this should be a determinative factor in vernacular chant setting. I'm genuinely mystified as to why you wish to encourage such laziness, and would genuinely like to know on what grounds you're doing so - other than an apparent unwillingness to help out unless you're paid to do so.

[NorthernTenor]

"how can we help improve the vernacular chanting skills of of parish clergy?"

..... by not putting stumbling blocks and man-traps in front of them when there is no musical reason?

Alan,

Please re-read my comments above and take it from someone who has considerable experience of vernacular chant - there really is no stumbling block. I am truly mystified as to how or why anyone could think otherwise, aside from lack of experience or a non-musical agenda.

[alan29]

Well Ian, I also have experience of English chant - many years of choral evensong. That really is vernacular chant, where the shape of the music springs from the shape of the language. And I have a lifetime of Latin chant (man and boy) again, where the music springs from the language. My problems start when you put a musical top hat on a linguistic monkey. Both are totally laudable in themselves, but the combination doesn't always work terribly well. The Englishing of Latin chant actually has its birth in a Victorian Anglican movement based on a massive theological agenda where liturgy was a means to prove an ecclesiological point, as I am sure you are aware.
So please, no more talk of agendas.

[contrabordun]

Ian, you're still avoiding the statement that in this specific case G-A-A would be better than G-G-A (in the sense of 'better' I gave previously). In fact, come to think of it, you haven't actually disputed that statement.

So please: do you think G-G-A is better, and if so, on what grounds?