Here's an interesting article posted last Friday at The Chant Café by Jeffrey Tucker;
http://www.chantcafe.com/2012/06/traini ... cians.html
The book that Jeffrey mentions, "The Musical Shape of the Liturgy" is by chap named William Mahrt.
The Training Of Church Musicians
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
Re: The Training Of Church Musicians
It worries me when questionable statements are made to justify the perfectly proper arguments that plainchant should be given greater pride of place in our masses, that plainchant is sometimes better unaccompanied and that there should be less emphasis on hymns.
1. "Church music is vocal music" Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically states that the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem and that instruments other than the pipe organ may be used. Many would agree that instruments can interfere with the proclamation of chant, however a suitable accompaniment can encourage diffident choirs and congregations to sing together and to keep in tune. In some churches congregations cannot even say the 'Our Father' in time with each other. If there is a group of singers who can lead confidently without accompaniment that is great but unaccompanied singing often needs a cantor at the front, something not particularly envisaged in the Roman Rite.
2. The text is the Word of God A good deal of it may be but large parts of the Gloria and Creed are not. As has been noted previously in the forum 'canti' (chants/hymns) approved by the local hierarchy may be used for gathering and communion, (I think this may even apply to Welsh hymn tunes!
) Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically instructed that texts sung should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from Liturgical sources (my italics).
3. The music of the Mass is given not invented. Other settings than the plainchant settings have been permissible for centuries and, indeed, polyphonic masses are considered to be almost as important to the church as plainchant. Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically instructed that a suitable place should be given to music from local traditions.
4. It is not a debate over style. Well, you could have fooled me! The comments here seem to confirm that there is a debate over style.
5. There is an embedded musical structure to the Roman Rite. I'm not sure what is meant here - if it is that chants are set in such works as the Liber Usualis, fine but as noted previously, other music is permitted for the Roman Rite. There are no responsorial psalms to be found in the Liber and indeed, the church there is latitude as to whether the psalm should be sung responsorially, sung solely by the choir or by a cantor - this doesn't appear to be an embedded musical structure to me. Even the chant structures of the Ordinary settings in the Liber can vary.
The arguments made in the post also ignore the fact that the English translations and their subsequent revisions have produced changes to the music of the Roman Rite, e.g. musical settings of the Eucharistic acclamations which, according to our bishops, should be consistent in style.
1. "Church music is vocal music" Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically states that the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem and that instruments other than the pipe organ may be used. Many would agree that instruments can interfere with the proclamation of chant, however a suitable accompaniment can encourage diffident choirs and congregations to sing together and to keep in tune. In some churches congregations cannot even say the 'Our Father' in time with each other. If there is a group of singers who can lead confidently without accompaniment that is great but unaccompanied singing often needs a cantor at the front, something not particularly envisaged in the Roman Rite.
2. The text is the Word of God A good deal of it may be but large parts of the Gloria and Creed are not. As has been noted previously in the forum 'canti' (chants/hymns) approved by the local hierarchy may be used for gathering and communion, (I think this may even apply to Welsh hymn tunes!
) Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically instructed that texts sung should be drawn chiefly from Holy Scripture and from Liturgical sources (my italics).3. The music of the Mass is given not invented. Other settings than the plainchant settings have been permissible for centuries and, indeed, polyphonic masses are considered to be almost as important to the church as plainchant. Sacrosanctum Concilium specifically instructed that a suitable place should be given to music from local traditions.
4. It is not a debate over style. Well, you could have fooled me! The comments here seem to confirm that there is a debate over style.
5. There is an embedded musical structure to the Roman Rite. I'm not sure what is meant here - if it is that chants are set in such works as the Liber Usualis, fine but as noted previously, other music is permitted for the Roman Rite. There are no responsorial psalms to be found in the Liber and indeed, the church there is latitude as to whether the psalm should be sung responsorially, sung solely by the choir or by a cantor - this doesn't appear to be an embedded musical structure to me. Even the chant structures of the Ordinary settings in the Liber can vary.
The arguments made in the post also ignore the fact that the English translations and their subsequent revisions have produced changes to the music of the Roman Rite, e.g. musical settings of the Eucharistic acclamations which, according to our bishops, should be consistent in style.
JW
Re: The Training Of Church Musicians
I see that Thomas is putting things far better than I ever could on the ChantCafe forum.
JW
-
gwyn
- Posts: 1148
- Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 3:42 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Archdiocese of Cardiff
- Location: Abertillery, South Wales UK
Re: The Training Of Church Musicians
I see that Thomas is putting things far better than I ever could on the ChantCafe forum.
A-ha! I didn't spot that. Time for another forage.