In quires and places....

[Merseysider]

When I started this thread I hadn't intended a debate (however reasoned) between people of differing viewpoints. My question was, should our cathedrals be setting an example.

There isn't much debate about what the people should sing and what may be sung by the choir. GIRM and other documents, to say nothing of the nature of the texts themselves. Week after week, musicians all over the country do all they can to encourage their congregations to sing the Gospel Greeting, Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Amen. Gloria, Agnus and countless motets and anthems can be sung by the choir ad lib.

If this is the model we're supposed to adhere to, should our cathedrals – as the Mother Churches of our dioceses – be leading by example? And if not, why not?

I still haven't seen a reasonable explanation here.

[mcb]

Maybe it's not so much that there are different viewpoints, as that there's more than one way of achieving the goals that liturgical music aims for.

There are two different strands to the story. Firstly, what's the relationship between the role of the assembly foreseen in SC and elsewhere, as active participant in the liturgy, and centuries of Catholic musical tradition that give it an entirely passive role? I agree with Contrabordun that there's no discernible intention in the liturgical documents to declare those centuries of tradition invalid, and that's there's evidently still an important place for our sacred musical heritage in living liturgy: you just have to accept that 'actuosa participatio' can take the form of listening to something sublime, at least as validly as it can take the form of joining in with something banal.

Participation-by-listening may be valid, but it's not normative. This is something for exceptional churches and exceptional congregations (to say nothing of the exceptional musical resources required - I said somewhere else in the forum that I think it's only really justified if the choral music at issue has unquestionable aesthetic merit). So the second strand to the discussion ought to be: where does the cathedral fit into this? I think the de facto answer is unsatisfactory: that cathedrals historically have been resourced more lavishly and have in consequence richer musical traditions, and that therefore the cathedral today is the appropriate place for preserving a passive role for the worshipping assembly. Here I agree with Merseysider: the cathedral is the mother church, and has a responsibility to provide a model of pastorally sound renewed liturgy that will serve as a genuine example for parishes. This is a vastly more important responsibility than that of conserving musical traditions.

Does that mean the cathedral is the wrong place to preserve our musical heritage? Maybe, if to do so means squeezing out pastorally sound renewed liturgy that's faithful to the vision of Vatican II. There are cathedrals that get this wrong, I think; and some of them renowned for their choral music. But cathedrals typically have the resources, so if there's room both for the liturgically right-on (:)) and for rarefied tradition, by all means lets have them both, as long as pride of place is given to liturgy that gives the assembly its proper role.

There are, however, other churches where choral traditions can be conserved: what about Brompton Oratory, or Farm Street? In my view those are better places to put musical tradition above liturgical principle, because they don't stand as a sign of what is normative, in the way the cathedral does.

The tricky bit is the resources - how do you provide a church that's not a cathedral with the funds to enable it to serve as a beacon of aesthetic excellence?

M.

[VML]

Brompton Oratory, or Farm Street... don't stand as a sign of what is normative, in the way the cathedral does.

Brompton Oratory may not be a typical parish church, but it may well be perceived as such by people who know almost nothing else about the Catholic Church: It has for some years been pictured as the main example of an RC church in a standard secondary schools' text book on comparative religions.

Maybe the researcher who decided it thinks the music is typical too

[Hare]

I always observe the "no organ voluntaries in Lent except for Laetare Sunday and solemnities" rule, and yet I have seen 2 RC cathedrals advertsising organ voluntaries on their music lists. My own PP says "its just a suggestion"

Who is right here please?

[presbyter]

You're not arguing singing De Angelis contravenes either the spirt or the letter of the Council are you?

I really must find time to contribute something at length to this thread ... and sorry to jump in from a page or two back.....

I cannot see myself (and I speak as one who has joined in with this at a Papal Masses in St Peter's and St Paul's basilicas) how singing the Sanctus and Benedictus from Mass VIII is fully in accord with the spirit and letter of the Council.

The music is late plainsong and therefore suffers from being unnecessrily melismatic, in my opinion. It is awkward to sing, unless you have the breath control and sense of phrasing of a trained professional singer. It is far too lengthy to have the nature of an acclamation. It was composed to cover the Eucharistic Prayer, not be a seemless part of it.

Much more appropriate, if we are going to plainsong during the Eucharistic Prayer, would be Mass XVI or Mass XVIII - in my opinion.

[contrabordun]

OK, hold my hands up to that, presbyter has answered the question that I did indeed actually, but unintentionally, ask.

Try again:

the use of Latin Plainsong ordinaries in a regular English language parish mass is not, in itself, A Bad Thing?

btw, would love presbyter to contribute at length to this thread.

[VML]

We have usually followed the instruction / direction / suggestion in the diocesan book that there music in lent should only be to support the singing. And we sing unaccompanied from the end of the Gloria on Maundy Thursday until the Gloria at the Vigil.

It emphasises the solemnity of the liturgy.

[mcb]

We have usually followed the instruction / direction / suggestion in the diocesan book that there music in lent should only be to support the singing. And we sing unaccompanied from the end of the Gloria on Maundy Thursday until the Gloria at the Vigil. It emphasises the solemnity of the liturgy.

In practice I find that silence isn't the only way of striking a Lenten note - organ music of different kinds can be every bit as effective in helping to establish an atmosphere of prayer, or penitence, or expectation... Perhaps in the end Lent is a richer and more complex season than the monochrome of keeping the organ silent might allow for.

We usually sing unaccompanied on Good Friday, and the effect is quite distinctive compared to what we usually do - solemn and arid. But the Triduum too, like the Sundays of Lent, is a richer and more complex sequence of liturgical events than a uniform and rather barren musical style might to justice to. In past years we've had piano and guitar for the Mass of the Lord's Supper, in keeping with the sense of community-as-family that comes (it seems to me) from the celebration resembling a Passover Seder meal. (At least, that was how our previous Bishop liked to order the celebration, and I felt that the informal style of the music helped in constructing this.) More recently we've played it 'straight' and gone back to having the organ for some things and doing others unaccompanied.

For the vigil the psalms before the Gloria seem to me to merit organ accompaniment. They would come across as somewhat stark if we did them unaccompanied, I think, and again we're aiming for something richer.

But I agree, unaccompanied singing can certainly be hauntingly atmospheric if it's done successfully.

M.

[ssgcgs]

We had our discussion at the CG meeting at Leeds Cathedral a couple of weeks ago. It is doubtful whether anyone was moved to change their point of view as a result of what was said. I did not attempt to “minute” what was said; I simply listened and gained an impression. Here it is, subjective as it may be. No references to who said what here, maintaining the tradition of Forum anonymity. If you were there, and I haven’t represented your point of view, feel free to post and add it!

Since the opening plea in this thread has been wiped by its author, we did not directly address the question which opened the debate (I later found a reference to it at the top of page 3 of this topic). We concentrated instead on the dichotomy between maintaining the treasure of sacred music and of commissioning new work of a similar standard against providing for the active participation of the assembly. The idea of how a cathedral might serve its diocese was touched on, but not so much as a model example for parishes to follow.

The Forum debate was seen to be looking for too many rules in the documents and trying to apply them – a peculiarly English thing. The documents are full of principles rather than rules and open to interpretation. We didn’t get stuck into the detail of whether every set of Eucharistic Acclamations used nowadays ought to be directly accessible to congregational singing. We did not address the difficulty of using music originally composed for a different rite and with a different purpose from today.

Not everyone saw it as a dichotomy. There was room in a cathedral timetable for all manner of different types of Masses and other services. For instance, traditional Vespers had turned out to be surprisingly popular in one cathedral despite the initial scepticism of the music director. Differing situations pertained to different cathedrals, some being more parochial than others. Even one with a tiny local population might draw a regular worshipping community with a sense of identity with the place and with each other, and therefore a particular congregational musical traditions. Others might attract predominantly those who sought anonymity or those who came for a special experience they could never hope to find in their own parish.

The musical precision or purity afforded by music restricted to the schola was particularly valued by one contributor, and the cry not to let go of the musical treasury idea was voiced by several. Congregational music could not be a vehicle for all the beauty, diversity and dignity of choral and instrumental composition. The dumbing down of musical standards in cathedrals, whether through adherence to perceived “rules” or through lack of financial/ musical resources, was seen as regrettable.

In the end, no prescription was laid down for the Cathedral Music Director. The success of youth choirs in the Leeds Diocese (through the work of the Cathedral) was noted. Schools were seen as a fertile pasture for drawing young singers into the liturgical life through the transcendent experience of sacred music.

I am reminded of the address by Pope John Paul given on 26 February 2003, on “The Beauty of Prayer and Liturgy” and reported in Music and Liturgy Vol 29 No 1. On the one hand, we are aspiring to some form of transcendent beauty through music and, on the other hand, all the faithful should take part in this song in a special way. Could it be that the post Vatican II composers have so far failed to produce the calibre of music, suited to the renewed liturgy, which was the preserve of the high art composers of previous centuries? After all, we’ve only been trying for forty-odd years…

Composers Group Sec

[presbyter]

Could it be that the post Vatican II composers have so far failed to produce the calibre of music, suited to the renewed liturgy, which was the preserve of the high art composers of previous centuries? After all, we’ve only been trying for forty-odd years…

Could define "calibre" please? After all, the definition of what makes music truly sacred music and most fitting for the liturgy is there as a firm principle in Conciliar teaching. I suggest that if Cathedral DOMs don't know what that is, then they should have an intense course in pastoral, liturgical and musical principles according to the mind of the Church and get themselves a spiritual director. If they do know what that is and do not adhere to it, then, in my opinion, it is a grave matter for the confessional.

[Merseysider]

...if Cathedral DOMs don't know what that is, then...

random executions are in order.

This debate is infuriating. The cathedral bods can sing high brow stuff until it's oozing out of every orifice – much as love Palestrina, Mozart and Vittoria, just don't stop me singing those parts of the Mass which belong to me or I might get really miffed.

Back to my original question, if those of us in ordinary parishes must try (according to Conciliar teaching, our bishops, our diocesan liturgy commission, general SSG practice and common sense) to lead our congregations in singing the Gospel greeting, the Sanctus, Acclamation and Great Amen, how/why do many of our cathedrals get away with not so doing?

I know of one bishop who tried to put this into pratice and was told by the cathedral MD that he obviously didn't know what he was talking about.

Fuming now so taking a leisurely drive around the city delivering brass, wind and string parts for next weekend.

Honestly!!!!!!

[musicus]

"The ministry of the composer, like that of all ministry, is that of service" (from the Liturgy Office's The Roman Missal - A Guide for Composers – very relevant to the present discussion, and worth reading).

Composers (and musical directors) should serve their communities by at least giving them what is rightly theirs. The eucharistic acclamations belong to the assembly. To argue against the assembly's participation in them on the grounds of aesthetics is utterly to miss the point. The Sanctus from Bach's Mass in B minor is sublime music, but it is beyond any assembly to sing and therefore has no place in the celebration of Mass, however grand or solemn the occasion. To compound the offence and have the piece sung for the assembly by a choir is even worse. Nor am I at all convinced by those (however exalted) who would have us believe that more often than not (and usually when it suits them) actuosa participatio, so far from being active in any meaningful sense of the word, does in fact imply an interior mode.

Great music will survive in concert performances (often given in churches) and in recordings (often made in churches); it does not rely on the liturgy to perpetuate it.

Church and cathedral choirs have quite enough licit stuff to do without depriving the assembly of what is theirs.

Remember Jesus' response to those who would have his followers keep silence: "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out." (Luke 19:37-40 RSV)

Musicus

[presbyter]

After all, the definition of what makes music truly sacred music and most fitting for the liturgy is there as a firm principle in Conciliar teaching.......

And if you are now wondering what that is - it is that music is both integral to and servant of RITE

[contrabordun]

The Forum debate was seen to be looking for too many rules in the documents and trying to apply them – a peculiarly English thing. The documents are full of principles rather than rules and open to interpretation.

I'm sorry, but this is unfair to the contributors to the Forum, and I think it's also a cop out .

One has to take a decision about whether or not a particular item is scheduled for a particular Sunday. It's clear that the contributors to this discussion have very different interpretations of the principles. Even presbyter's post (above), begs the question of how is one to judge whether the music is integral and servant to rite. Do we just know it when we see it? The point has been made several times, that these are subjective judgements, specific to particular masses and congregations, and even individual members of a particular congregation on a particular might disagree (musicus's uncompromising comments on B minor mass might not hold true for a diocesan choir festival [oh if only!] )

It seems to me, for example, that mcb and Merseysider disagree fundamentally on whether a choir-only Sanctus is consistent with the principles. They cannot both be right. There isn't some superset of liturgical options which includes both positions. They can agree to differ, but that just postpones the question - doesn't answer it. Given the emotions and depths of conviction involved, I think this thread has done a good job of making the cases in an admirably good natured and reasonable fashion, but it hasn't actually "answered the question" - and for those who are presumably better versed in the arguments than (eg) myself to dismiss it as a "peculiarly English...looking for rules" (do the Scots not have these arguments? The Americans certainly do, but perhaps they count as honorary English? I haven't gotten deeply enough into liturgical debate out here to know whether the Spanish do) is just unhelpful.
We have all read the documents, and we are all convinced that we understand them, or at least, know what the words say. What I (for one) am interested in is to know the views, and the reasoning behind the views, of as many informed people as possible, in order that I can effectively perform my tasks of music selection and preparation.

The "detail of whether every set of Eucharistic Acclamations used nowadays ought to be directly accessible to congregational singing" and the "difficulty of using music originally composed for a different rite and with a different purpose from today" is exactly the point at issue, because without this level of detail, to those of us planning music month by month, the principles become so far open to interpretation as to become meaningless.

[musicus]

I wholeheartedly agree with everything in Contrabordun's last post. In fact, I had intended to deal with that 'principle versus rules' nonsense myself, until my post took off in other directions.

(And Contrabordun is, of course, correct about Bach and choir festivals - provided only that every single member of the assembly constitutes the choir - but not many assemblies are so skilled!)

Musicus