Congregational singing of hymns

[mcb]

I just feel that "giving" them one line smacks of being patronising and suggests that that's all they can handle. I have heard antiphonal singing of a psalm with the congregation and cantor singing alternative lines to a simple setting at congregational Vespers at Westminster Cathedral and the level of participation is much much better, and it sounds just stunning.

I've been to Vespers at Westminster, and I agree that it's stunning to hear the choir and people singing alternatim. But the Mass is different from the Office, and there's a point to the Psalm response which is more than just tossing the people a bone: the text of the response often encapsulates exactly what connects the Gospel reading with the OT reading and the psalm. To some extent, depending on how thematically unified the scripture readings and the propers are for a given Mass, it can sum up the whole celebration. So I'd suggest it's a much better option to keep looking for settings that you feel are musically worthy, that to write off the form altogether, on the basis of a (misplaced?) unease at what it sets out to achieve.

As I said before the musical settings for the resp. Psalms I have heard have been horribly ugly and not even particulalrly singable -often sounding like a commercial jingle - which defeats the whole object of participation.

I can't really relate to this at all. If you're saying all responsorial psalm settings are inadequate, the only reply can be to ask when on earth you found time to hear them all? I suppose you may have been trapped in a parish where a second rate source was used exclusively, but by the sound of things you get around a bit. There are lots of good collections to choose from. I draw a lot on Geoffrey Boulton Smith, ed: Responsorial Psalm Book for Sundays and Feastdays (Collins, 1980) and Stephen Dean, ed: The Complete Responsorial Psalter (McCrimmon, 1997), plus the three-volume Psallite collection, and a great many individual settings in song-style available in collections, hymn-books and as individual octavos. If settings in a plainchant idiom are more to your taste there are the Chabanel psalms and those by Arlene Oost-Zinner, available on-line for download. Lots to choose from, and I'd urge caution against sweeping generalisations about quality, which runs the risk of sounding like prejudging the issue.

[londonchurchman]

I just feel that "giving" them one line smacks of being patronising and suggests that that's all they can handle. I have heard antiphonal singing of a psalm with the congregation and cantor singing alternative lines to a simple setting at congregational Vespers at Westminster Cathedral and the level of participation is much much better, and it sounds just stunning.

I've been to Vespers at Westminster, and I agree that it's stunning to hear the choir and people singing alternatim. But the Mass is different from the Office, and there's a point to the Psalm response which is more than just tossing the people a bone: the text of the response often encapsulates exactly what connects the Gospel reading with the OT reading and the psalm. To some extent, depending on how thematically unified the scripture readings and the propers are for a given Mass, it can sum up the whole celebration. So I'd suggest it's a much better option to keep looking for settings that you feel are musically worthy, that to write off the form altogether, on the basis of a (misplaced?) unease at what it sets out to achieve.

As I said before the musical settings for the resp. Psalms I have heard have been horribly ugly and not even particulalrly singable -often sounding like a commercial jingle - which defeats the whole object of participation.

I can't really relate to this at all. If you're saying all responsorial psalm settings are inadequate, the only reply can be to ask when on earth you found time to hear them all? I suppose you may have been trapped in a parish where a second rate source was used exclusively, but by the sound of things you get around a bit. There are lots of good collections to choose from. I draw a lot on Geoffrey Boulton Smith, ed: Responsorial Psalm Book for Sundays and Feastdays (Collins, 1980) and Stephen Dean, ed: The Complete Responsorial Psalter (McCrimmon, 1997), plus the three-volume Psallite collection, and a great many individual settings in song-style available in collections, hymn-books and as individual octavos. If settings in a plainchant idiom are more to your taste there are the Chabanel psalms and those by Arlene Oost-Zinner, available on-line for download. Lots to choose from, and I'd urge caution against sweeping generalisations about quality, which runs the risk of sounding like prejudging the issue.

Thank you mcb for this very helpful note. I will look up the links given and try to find out which settings are used at the parishes I visit.

[Nick Baty]

MCB got in while I was still typing but...
I'm picking up on two points here, LC.
1) You presume that responsorial psalms are always sung in a responsorial format, which is not the case although it is my preference (and MCB has, in the meantime, explained above).
2) You appear to have heard only those settings of the above where the assembly refrain is just two or three bars long. Take, for example, Paul Inwood's Ps 127 (O blessed are those who fear the Lord): The assembly has an eight-bar refrain and this flows easily from the cantor's verse. It would immodest to mention Nick Baty's Ps 117 (O give thanks to the Lord) where the assembly has 16 bars, with a descant from the choir – so I won't.

[Southern Comfort]

I just feel that "giving" them one line smacks of being patronising and suggests that that's all they can handle.

I agree that it can come across like this, and I think it is precisely for this reason that composers in the last few decades have pushed the envelope by giving the people responses which are at least as long as the verses (for example, Bob Hurd's As the deer longs) if not even longer (for example, Stephen Dean's Prepare ye) and many examples in the Psallite collections. Experienced congregations can handle these without any trouble. The larger the people's contribution, the more they realise that their part is essential to the whole enterprise and that they are not being fobbed off with a few notes and a snippet of text. A proportion of the Psallite settings use 1/4 or 1/2 refrains at the end of every line or every other line, in addition to the response or antiphon itself, increasing the people's involvement still further.

But you have to start somewhere, and in any case the point is that people haven't come to church for a music lesson, they've come to pray. Enabling instant sung prayer with a one-line response has an important function in building up the body.

[Nick Baty]

Experienced congregations can handle these without any trouble... Enabling instant sung prayer with a one-line response has an important function in building up the body.

I find people can usually hand longer refrains more easily. Perhaps it's because of their shape (the refrain, not the people). Good tunes include repetition and/or sequence. Think Daisy, Daisy (written by one of MCB's predecessors at Salford), Waitin' at the Church, stacks of Lennon and McCartney, a dollop of Lady Gaga and a good splurge of Noel Gay. Paul Inwood's I will praise you Lord has worked in every church where I've tried it. If this sounds disjointed, it's because of the painkillers I've been taking since being disjointed!

[JW]

Have we now changed this topic to "Congregational Singing of Psalms"? If so, one or two comments about our parish, not meant to take sides one way or the other:

1) If the words of the Response are repeated, we have to warn the congregation either by announcing beforehand or by a 'HALT' sign from the cantor. Otherwise the congregation and the priest will come in after the first declamation of the response.

2) If the words of the Response are different from those on the published Mass Sheets, then we need to tell the congregation what the revised words are after the 1st reading (no use doing it before Mass as half the congregation aren't there!). Of course some people produce tailored Mass sheets for their congregations - too much work for us, I'm afraid.

3) In any case, to what extent may the response be paraphrased? And to what extent may the psalm itself be paraphrased? Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other as I use paraphrased settings sometimes.

4) To have good, confident cantors with properly trained voices, proclaiming the psalm as it is meant to be proclaimed, is far more important than the musical quality of the setting itself. A very simple responsorial setting will sound beautiful in the right hands.

5) I'm afraid London Churchman's comments make me very fearful about the state of music generally in London churches. Is it time for them to hire professional musicians and choirs and where would the money come from?

[Nick Baty]

1) If the words of the Response are repeated, we have to warn the congregation either by announcing beforehand or by a 'HALT' sign from the cantor.

Not always necessary. Take Inwood's Ps 127: O Blessed are those. At the end of the first phrase, the cantor could sing through the word "ways" with a slight crescendo thus making it obvious that it's not yet time to come in. Same with a setting of Psalm 24: Answer me, O God (modesty forbids me from mentioning its source but there's more info here. The cantor does the same with the word "God".

Otherwise the congregation and the priest will come in after the first declamation of the response.

That's a wonderful problem to have. Sometimes happens with us. Much better than worrying about people not coming in at all.

2) If the words of the Response are different from those on the published Mass Sheets

Published Mass sheets are the work of the devil, along with broccoli, Louis Spence and Match of the Day.

Of course some people produce tailored Mass sheets for their congregations - too much work for us, I'm afraid.

It's probably the smallest task in all your preparation. I reckon ours take me around 15 minutes a week, although I usually produce several in one sitting to save time.

3) In any case, to what extent may the response be paraphrased?

The examples given above aren't really paraphrases – more a case of repetition, as in settings of the Holy which acclaim "Hosanna, Hosanna, Hosanna in the highest".

A very simple responsorial setting will sound beautiful in the right hands.

Hear! Hear!

Is it time for them to hire professional musicians and choirs and where would the money come from?

I'm sure many of us know establishments which do this. The standard of music is phenomenal. The standard of liturgical music is often appalling.

[londonchurchman]

I'm afraid London Churchman's comments make me very fearful about the state of music generally in London churches. Is it time for them to hire professional musicians and choirs and where would the money come from?

What I don't understand is that most of the Churches I have visited do seem to have Directors of Music (though admittedly I don't know whether they are paid or unpaid) but the music still seems to be in a bad way. Some churches even have choirs, but they don't sing a motet: they just seem to be there to sing the hymns and the Ordinary etc, and do so oblivious to the fact that hardly any one in the congregation is participating.

Of course all the central London churches have professional choirs but almost all the resource - perhaps understandably - seems to be put into a late morning Solemn Latin Mass. Could this be part of the probelm and perhaps limit the opportunities for good congregational but traditional vernacular sung masses?

[Southern Comfort]

1) If the words of the Response are repeated, we have to warn the congregation either by announcing beforehand or by a 'HALT' sign from the cantor.

Not always necessary. Take Inwood's Ps 127: O Blessed are those. At the end of the first phrase, the cantor could sing through the word "ways" with a slight crescendo thus making it obvious that it's not yet time to come in.

I believe the OCP octavo of this setting specifies that the very first time, the cantor sings the response (up to "ways"), and then the assembly sings the second half (a direct repeat). Thereafter, the assembly sings it twice through at the end of each verse.

[Southern Comfort]

Of course all the central London churches have professional choirs but almost all the resource - perhaps understandably - seems to be put into a late morning Solemn Latin Mass. Could this be part of the probelm and perhaps limit the opportunities for good congregational but traditional vernacular sung masses?

I think you might have nailed it. They don't actually want the people to sing.

[dmu3tem]

Here are a few ad hoc reactions:

[1] Since the 1960s Catholic congregations have, by and large (a bit of a sweeping generalisation) come to congregational singing through hymnody. If, for all intents and purposes, this is being 'downgraded' (cf derogatory remarks about the 'four hymn sandwich') in favour of Responsorial Psalms, Entrance and Communion Antiphons and attacks are also made on singing a 'final hymn' at the end we should not be too surprised to see a 'dip' (hopefully temporary) in congregational participation when it comes to singing.

[2] The hymn repertoire has undergone enormous expansion - and changes of content (melodies and a wider variety of styles) since the 1960s; so this means that you cannot always guarantee a 'common core' of hymns you can expect any congregation to reasonably know. This problem applies to other denominations too. For example at my local Anglican church (where I play the Organ), they have a new vicar; he keeps trying to introduce hymns he thinks everyone knows (or should know) and is then surprised to find that in some cases this does not apply! He then compounds the difficulty by refusing to countenance rehearsing the congregation before the service in the new repertoire he wishes to introduce. The liturgical thinking that supports this is perfectly sound, in that he wants people to have a period of quiet reflection before the service, but in the absence of a choir (or cheer-leading group) and Cantor this lands him in particular difficulties. He is also resistant to the idea of using the 'activity time' that replaces the sermon in 'All Age Worship' services for rehearsal of new hymn repertoire preceded by remarks about the content and meaning of the hymn in question, despite the fact that in the Anglican tradition there is a slot for a 'Gradual Hymn' between the first and second readings. Nonetheless, this might be a useful avenue to explore - and not just for hymns, but for Responsorial Psalms, antiphons or other sung items. In this way what people sing would be linked to thought about the content and meaning of the texts. It would also reduce the pressure on Catholic priests who find it difficult or onerous (they have my fullest sympathy) to compose sermons!

[3] The act of introducing Responsorial Psalms and, even more so, Communion and Entrance Antiphons means that vast quantities of new music have to be learnt. Congregations cannot be expected to master this all at once; although with effective leadership from choirs and cantors some congregations will make reasonable efforts to pick up new settings 'from cold' as it were. Nonetheless, even with these groups, the constant introduction of new settings will pose something of a handicap in the way of whole-hearted group singing. This problem, of course, is less acute with Responsorial Psalms, because the form has been around for over forty years; but if these still pose problems, then it is inevitable that mastery of new Communion and Entrance Antiphons will prove even more difficult.

[4] Notice too how the fact that you have a different text for every sunday with Responsorial Psalms, Gospel Acclamations, Entrance and Communion Antiphons means that it is difficult to inculcate a repertoire in these genres by repetition (unlike with hymns and Mass settings). This difficulty can, of course, be mitigated by adopting a common core of texts.

[5] Singing Mass settings is also going through a period of temporary transition. The introduction last year of new Mass texts means that new settings have had to be composed; and it will take time to learn these. One reaction to this difficulty has been to adapt existing settings to the new text. In some cases this seems to work quite well; but with others I am uncertain about its efficacy in the long run. Partly it is a matter of how effectively the music has been adapted to suit the new texts, partly there is a matter of confusion in people's minds between old and new settings, especially if, as a congregation, they cannot read music (or at any rate do not have it in front of their eyes).

[6] As some of the previous messages indicate a lot will depend on the quality of the new music that is being composed. By 'quality' I do not mean 'quality' in an absolute sense. I am suspicious of any idea that there is such a thing as a common universally accepted 'standard'. In this context I mean whether the tunes are 'catchy', even if the style might be seen by some as rather vulgar. If music is 'catchy' then people will sing it; if it is not, no matter how many other desirable attributes it may have, it will take time to be assimilated. A feature of many Gospel Acclamation, Responsorial Psalm, Communion and Entrance Antiphon settings is that the music is often very anodyne, especially if it uses some sort of chant. Such music may be 'correct' but it does not inspire, especially if what you want is whole-hearted full-bloodied congregational singing. If you don't want this, and prefer something that is allegedly more 'spiritual' (or understated), then it is much harder to get congregations to do this effectively. The tendency will be for the singing to be muddled and lacking in conviction. It is, of course, possible (even desirable at times) to get congregations to sing both quietly and with conviction, but even with trained musicians this requires careful training and preparation; so one should not be surprised to encounter problems when this is attempted.

To sum up, the almost simultaneous introduction of new repertoire in Mass settings, Psalms, Gospel Acclamations, Entrance and Communion Antiphons means that it is inevitable there will be a 'dip' in congregational singing participation from which it may or may not recover. If it does recover it will in large measure be determined by the quality of leadership displayed by Cantors and other specialist musicians at parish level.

[Southern Comfort]

Not sure about all this.

We started singing hymns at Mass in the mid-1960s.
We started singing responsorial psalms and gospel acclamations in the early 1970s.
We started singing folk hymns in the mid-1970s.
We started singing Taizé chants in the late 1970s.
We started singing charismatic music in the early 1980s.
We started singing Iona chants in the late 1980s.
We started singing "praise and worship" songs and choruses in the early 1990s.
We started singing entrance and communion antiphons in the mid-2000s.
We started singing new settings for the revised Mass translation in the early 2010s.

Seems like quite a gentle progression, really, even if everyone's experience of the beginning of these different phenomena might have been at slightly different times from those outlined above. I don't think the attempt to blame the singing of entrance and communion antiphons for a dip in congregational singing really works. They started at least half a dozen years ago. In any case, like the response to the psalm, good settings of entrance and communion antiphons are instant music that doesn't need to be learnt, only to be imitated, like psalm responses. New mass settings is a different kettle of fish.

Historically, I think it is also possible to take issue with the statement that most congregations came to singing through hymnody. A significant proportion did not, or at least did not come to genuine singing by this route. One of the remarkable achievements of the liturgical reforms was to get congregations singing via the response to the psalm, and thereafter via call-response mass settings. We need to acknowledge the role of pioneers like Bill Tamblyn in this area.

[Nick Baty]

Since the 1960s Catholic congregations have, by and large (a bit of a sweeping generalisation) come to congregational singing through hymnody.

Yes and no. In the days when the only Mass with music was the last one of the morning, few Catholics had any experience of music at Mass. In a parish with five Masses this could mean as few as 20% had ever sung the Sanctus. The only common repertoire was hymns used at devotions – very few of them were/are suitable for Mass. Those who did attend the “High Mass” (certainly in my home parish) were used to Missa de Angelis and Missa Cum Jubilo. But if the choir decided to launch into Terry’s Mass in C now and then, nobody minded very much.

…the fact that you have a different text for every sunday with Responsorial Psalms, Gospel Acclamations, Entrance and Communion Antiphons means that it is difficult to inculcate a repertoire in these genres by repetition (unlike with hymns and Mass settings).

Well Psalm 23, for example, appears half-a-dozen time a year and is suitable as a Communion song on many other occasions. So, certainly in our parish, it will be sung more frequently than some of the Holys we use.

The act of introducing Responsorial Psalms and, even more so, Communion and Entrance Antiphons means that vast quantities of new music have to be learnt.

Many of these simply have to be repeated after the cantor – no real learning here.

…mastery of new Communion and Entrance Antiphons will prove even more difficult.

We’ve been looking to some of our more popular responsorial psalms for use as Communion psalms.

The introduction last year of new Mass texts means that new settings have had to be composed; and it will take time to learn these.

We have five sets of eucharistic acclamations at the moment – and they seem to be going reasonably well. However, we are struggling along with just two Glorias, one through composed and one antiphonal. It’s the latter which the folk are struggling with.

…the almost simultaneous introduction of new repertoire in Mass settings, Psalms, Gospel Acclamations, Entrance and Communion Antiphons means that it is inevitable there will be a 'dip' in congregational singing participation from which it may or may not recover.

If you’ve been sitting still for a while then, yes, there may be a negative reaction. But if the assembly is used to assimilating new music then they won’t really notice a slowly changing repertoire. The onus is then on the parish MD to put a little more work into planning.

[Nick Baty]

We need to acknowledge the role of pioneers like Bill Tamblyn in this area.

I am so very proud to be able to say I studied with Bill Tamblyn and, more importantly, experienced his week-by-week work in St Teresa's Church, Lexden, Colchester. Bill was always very generous to we youngsters (it's 30 years ago now!), encouraging us to direct the choir and/or the assembly and would often use our early attempts at composition and then ask afterwards, "Well, did it work?" I didn't/don't agree with everything Bill did – but he would never expect anyone to. He enjoyed being challenged – although he was usually right!

[dmu3tem]

Many thanks for all the replies.

Yes, when one writes a long generalised message covering a very broad field, it is easy to shoot holes in it on specific points of detail. I am quite sure there are quite a few communities who came to singing by routes other than hymnody, just as there are many that were (and are) 'quick on the draw' with the introduction of Responsorial Psalms, other antiphons and new Mass settings.

My point though was that, in the grand scale of things, 60 years is not a very long time. Developing a strong congregational singing tradition from the very limited base before Vatican II is not something that will happen overnight across the entire English Catholic community. I still encounter congregations up here in Lancashire who refuse to sing, or refuse to sing what they imagine they do not know, where sung Responsorial Psalms, Gospel Acclamations (let alone other antiphons or even new Mass settings) are completely unknown. In such circumstances a sequence of quite major changes spread over just a little over half a century is a strategic error, especially if some of those changes involve abandoning large amounts of musical material that has already been introduced.

The vital question then is how general this lack of participation really is; and a clear-cut answer can only be provided by a detailed statistical survey. Without this, as things stand, you are really in the position of saying that, for every one community that does sing 'everything', there is likely to be another that does very little. I would contend, though, that there is one basic exception to this. Every single Catholic church I have been around always has a relatively modern hymnal (by that I mean something published from the 1970s onwards - compare this with many Anglican churches that still depend on later editions of Hymns Ancient and Modern or the English Hymnal). This suggests to me that my assertion that most Catholic congregations came to singing mainly through hymnody does have something going for it. You could though, counter by pointing out that most modern Catholic Hymnals also incorporate Mass settings and some have many Responsorial Psalm and Gospel Acclamation settings. The question then is 'which came first? - hymns or Mass settings or something else. This again is something that is very hard to answer statistically; but there is a pointer in the fact that in terms of notice-boards many Catholic churches are only set up to give hymn numbers. When other items (Mass settings, Antiphons, Psalms etc) are used they are either announced verbally, or inserted in the weekly newsletter, or the hymn number system is adapted in some fashion or other. What this suggests is that, subliminally at least, many people still think of singing as connected first and foremost with hymnody.