In quires and places.... the originator fights back

[Merseysider]

An item in the Spring 2005 edition of Music & Liturgy, states that the debate In Quires and Places... "hangs on the legitimacy of the use of high-art music, especially in cathedrals...".

As the originator of – and frequent contributor to – this thread, I would like to make it clear that it doesn't – it's about the tradition in many cathedrals of using choral music in place of those items which belong to the assembly: Holy, Acclamation, Amen (some would add Gospel Greeting).

I wanted to know why, while we parish musicians work hard to encourage our assemblies to sing these items, cathedrals get away with ignoring the rules.

At no point did I criticise the use of any amount of choral music – I simply asked why cathedrals were not models for parish worship.

[sidvicius]

Could there possibly be some 'shock and awe' going on here? My limited experience of cathedrals is somewhat humbling - you only have to walk in to be impressed with the monumental-ness of these places, and perhaps the cathedrals feel they need similarly awe-inspiring music to match?

I also get the impression that many people go to cathedral mass to get the huge 'cathedral experience'. If I go to Donington, I expect, nay demand to be awe-inspired by Motorhead (smoke and bells in extremis), but if I go to the pub, I'm happy enough to singalong with Joe Smalltime.

Did you see any congregational singing at the latin mass on the TV last week? It was hugely ceremonial and I think some people like that, particularly as most of them wouldn't have a clue which bits were 'their bits', latin or not.

I do empathise however. I agree that there should be more national communication on matters of music and liturgy for all Catholic churches, perhaps with cathedrals providing a lead, but perhaps we should be grateful that, as things are, we're allowed to do our own thing!

[Gabriel]

Could I nuance Merseysider's questions?

In what ways are Cathedrals models of liturgy?

How does a Cathedral engage with the renewal of tradition so that there something to hand on to future generations?

How do Cathedral musicians understand their role as ministry and one of the principle functions of ministry is to enable the participation of the assembly in the liturgy.

This not meant to bash all Cathedrals - these same questions could be asked of parishes as easily. But a Cathedral is supposed to be a model for other churches in the diocese. Firstly, I would suggest, through observance of liturgical documents, secondly in the care and attention with which the liturgy is both prepared and celebrated. Thirdly through the engagement with tradition but as I have tried to suggest above tradition is not solely about the past.

The question of singing the Sanctus is not one of filling in a liturgical checkbox but fundamental to why do we participate and what are we participating in. How do we particpate in the Eucharistic Prayer - which is our right and duty through baptism?

I presume Sidv' was referring to the televised Mass from Westminster Cathedral. What struck me was that the intention was there - psalm, gospel acclamation and Sanctus were all music for the assembly. I see that in the text of the Pope's funeral the Sanctus is marked for Schola and Assembly.

Gabriel

[musicus]

I see that in the text of the Pope's funeral the Sanctus is marked for Schola and Assembly.

Thank you for that link, Gabriel - very useful. I see that the Creed also includes the assembly; indeed - and here presbyter can take heart - it is a refrain setting!

So it would seem that Rome is setting a good example as to how these large-scale public events can be done - and they don't come any larger than this (indoors, that is).

Musicus

[Merseysider]

It's been pointed out to me that I have rather misrepresented the earlier thread – "In Quires and Places" – and I feel, therefore, that I was wrong to start this one.

I really ought to keep my thoughts to myself as I realise I am way out of line and rather conservative (I feel the need to stress the small "c" at the beginning of that word) in my approach to music in the liturgy.

Apologies – all comments withdrawn.

Merseysider

[gwyn]

I really ought to keep my thoughts to myself as I realise I am way out of line and rather conservative

Couldn't agree less, Merseysider. Let's have frank and open contributions to out discussions (yours are both M). even inviting contriburions from trendy lefty bishops who have done so much damage to the catholic church in the UK over past years and who have been responsible for the emptying churches so often shown on BBC news broadcasts.

Don't apologise M, just continue being honest.

[mcb]

trendy lefty bishops who have done so much damage to the catholic church in the UK over past years and who have been responsible for the emptying churches

Not sure we really want to go there, least of all in a thread about choirs. But I think that's arrant nonsense, and bang out of order.

M.

[Merseysider]

trendy lefty bishops who have done so much damage to the catholic church in the UK over past years

A view often aired in the Catholic papers and without the slightest shred of evidence to support it. And a tad off topic?

[musicus]

Yes, let's stay on-topic, people, and not lose the plot (as the original thread did).

Musicus (moderator)

[presbyter]

........the debate In Quires and Places... "hangs on the legitimacy of the use of high-art music, especially in cathedrals...".
...........I would like to make it clear that it doesn't – it's about the tradition in many cathedrals of using choral music in place of those items which belong to the assembly............

Let's stick to this. I am not against choral music - by the way - my concern is simply how it is used. If it truly serves the purpose of the liturgy (SC 10) through being a vehicle which lifts our hearts and minds and whole being in prayer in appropriate places in our celebrations, that's fine. But don't let high art music become an end in itself. Michael Joncas (source not to hand at the moment) makes the point somewhere that an assembly's rendition of "Amazing Grace" in cracked, broken and elderly voices can be heartfelt prayer, engaging the faithful intensely and corporately in the experience of being in the presence of - and in dialogue with - God. But then, such a "performance" might not be very pleasant to listen to by an outsider.
Conversely, and no matter how equisitely beautiful and polished a performance, a choral item might simply induce a passive reaction in its hearers - the choir is making a nice noise - 'holy' acoustic wallpaper.

Let's take the title of this thread. (It reflects a centuries old squabble over the use of choirs in worship) Cranmer's conflation of Matins and Lauds / Vespers and Compline attempted to make the Prayer of the Church just that - the prayer of all the people. But it didn't give the choir much scope, as it were, to "shine". The Carolingian reform of the Anglican liturgy added the possibility of the choir singing an anthem. (Let's not go into post-reformation factions in the C of E though.)

A question or two..... ....... in the light of the liturgical movement, hardly begun in 1662....

What's the anthem for? What pastoral, liturgical purpose does it serve?

and more difficult .......

What's going on in the hearts and minds of the people as they listen to it?

Now return to the Roman Rite and consider what might be happening if the choir lessen the assembly's participation in the Sanctus through making it just an exercise in listening (and remember Benevenio's point too that the introduction clearly indicates that "we" join in..... ....... and even the late Dom LB's point at a Summer School a while back that here 'heaven meets earth'. )

Questions....

What is the "Sanctus"?

What is it for?

What should be our experience in the prayer of the liturgy at this moment?

How might music best serve the prayer of the liturgy at this point? ( bis orat qui bene cantat)

What's going on in the hearts and minds of people if they:

i) just listen to a choral Sanctus
ii) are enabled to sing the Sanctus (without choral embellishments)
iii) are enabled to sing the Sanctus (with choral embellishments)

If I appear to be hard line and fundamentalist on the rule in GIRM (thanks mcb!!!!) - it is not in blind obedience to a rubric. In my opinion, to exclude the assembly from physically singing at this point is - to use one of Rome's favourite words at the moment - an "abuse" of the liturgy, for it lessens their intensity of what the experience of the prayer of the liturgy at this point should be. Our Cathedrals should - in my opinion - be firm in there adherence to GIRM here and (if I might lob another brickbat into the debate) never look over their shoulders at what might be happening down the road in the C of E establishment, imposing the C of E model on the Roman Rite.

[Merseysider]

did you see any congregational singing at the latin mass on the TV last week?...most of them wouldn't have a clue which bits were 'their bits', latin or not.

Was no clue given by the cantor/animator? And then there's our tradition: we've being doing it for at least 100 years haven't we – since Pius Whichever reminded us which bits we should be singing. Or am I back in Pollyanna world?

This debate is beginning to sound a lot like the arguments over fox-hunting/slavery/children up chimneys/women down pits/hanging/gay rights etc: "That's the way it is so there's not much we can do about it." Yes there is – we can do a fan-bleeping-tastic amount about it.

We'd still be shipping heathen black children into Bristol (Liverpool remains adamant it wasn't involved) if Newton, Wesley, Wilberforce and co hadn't done some something.

(And that reminds me – Newton wrote Amazing Grace after turning to God, and away from slavery, during a particularly stormy voyage – remember that when you sing it and the words somehow appear deeper. And he later had a job as tide surveyor here in Liverpool – that's where he met Wesley – so at least we know he spent some time in the Promised Land.)

If I was standing for election (and thank God I'm not because I've walked the length and breadth of Downing Street and can't find a decent off-licence) I'd be sending out a rallying call: "Do you want the people to sing? Do you want the people to sing the bits that matter? Do you want to help bring liturgy alive?"

Judging by some of the postings on here, I suspect the reply from the throng might be: "Er... well.... erm... it might... er... you know... be... er... tricky... and I just have this letter to post".

Sorry Pope Pius (whichever) we think it's a nice idea but we don't want to upset the apple cart. Sorry John Newton, we're still lost, waiting to be found. And anyway, there's so much to be done: we're having bingo after Mass...

[presbyter]

Did you see any congregational singing at the latin mass on the TV last week?

Well thanks to Pius (whichever) in 1903, 1929 and 1947 we did indeed sing the Mass in Latin - often in dialogue with the schola. My childhood memories (mid to late 1950s) of High Mass in a small South Yorkshire mining town resonate with the assembly's participation in song - and I wonder how many churches still have copies of those cards that Carey's published for the congregation with Mass VIII on one side and Credo III on the reverse. (Not that I think - see a former post somewhere - that Mass VIII is now necessarily the best chant setting for celebration)

[Merseysider]

Flicking through the 1933 preface to The English Hymnal – well, there wasn't much on TV and Woman's Hour was distinctly disappointing – I came across the following comments from Ralph Vaughan Williams. He was writing about hymn singing rather than Holys and other acclamations but, 72 years on, there's a certain resonance:

"Hymns are essentially for the congregation; the choir have their opportunity elsewhere but in the hymn they must give way to the congregation…A large body of voices singing together makes a distinctly artistic effect. And it may be added that a desire to parade a trained choir often accompanies a debased musical taste.

"There are churches in which the experiment has been successfully tried of making choir and people sing some hymns antiphonally. By this means the people are given a distinct status in the service…while the eternal war between choir and congregation, each considering the other an unnecessary appendage to the service of the church, is done away with."

RVW goes on to suggest "congregational practices" but I presume he'd lost the plot at this stage.

[Merseysider]

My childhood memories (mid to late 1950s) of High Mass in a small South Yorkshire mining town resonate with the assembly's participation in song

And in the late 60s/early 70s in a small Merseyside town.

Not that I think that Mass VIII is now necessarily the best chant setting for celebration)

True, but it's a great one to belt out. I once had the joy of accompanying Credo III after the Candlelight Procession in Lourdes – 55,000 people in the square singing their hearts out under the direction of Pere Décha. I often think about the nun who sat next to me on the organ bench and helped calm my nerves by balancing a rosary ring on her nose.

[contrabordun]

Ralph Vaughan Williams...writing about hymn singing

Take no notice whatsoever of his tempi... I reckon they made lungs differently in them days (e.g. from cast iron?).