Psalms for the new Lectionary

[Nick Baty]

Just 15 weeks until we start using the new Lectionary – First Sunday of Advent, Year C. CTS is producing a collection of chant-style settings of the Reponsorial Psalms. And McCrimmons is updating its existing Responsorial Psalter. Meanwhile, several members of this forum – mostly members of the SSG – have been swapping notes to produce an online psalm shop.

https://www.musicforliturgy.online will allow you to browse psalms by feast, number or composer. All will be available for download – and we’re working to keep the pricing competitive. As with the print editions, we’re currently awaiting approval for each piece from the Liturgy Office and that’s quite a lengthy process.

In the meantime, have a browse through the site and let us know if you think it might be useful.

I’ll update this when we have further news. In the meantime, click the “Contact” button at the top of https://www.musicforliturgy.online to join our mailing list.

[gwyn]

A-ha! That looks to be a grand resource. Da iawn to all contributors.

[dmu3tem]

Two points strike me:
[1] Some 50 years worth of Psalm settings are being jettisoned as a result of the introduction of new mandatory texts. Some, however, may survive in adapted form: mainly those using Gelineau or Bevenot methods of composition. 'Through-composed' works are more resistant to this sort of treatment.
[2] New texts require new settings; so composers have an opportunity to rethink how music is composed for them. Furthermore the copyright situation may prove simpler to operate and less obstructive than in the past - you don't have to deal with both the text publisher and the bishops conference as was the case before; the two are rolled in to one. The price, of course, is the rigid way the text is imposed on composers - no repetition, reshuffling of phrases or other adaptive devices that composers like to use. You have to stick exactly to the text as it stands, even if the music suffers as a result - a real test of any composer's skills. This though was often the case under the old regime.

Regarding new - or under-explored - technical approaches. Here are some ideas - mainly stemming from the built-in contrast between the response and verses; but also responding to the huge emotional - and often rapidly changing - mood range in many psalm texts. This is something that has often been understated in the past.
[a] Provide more demanding parts in verses that exploit a given Cantor's (specialist) skills to enhance the meaning and effect of textual images and ideas (word painting). Resist the natural tendency to write one note per syllable stuff at all times - melismas double your creative options. You can also use word painting to emphasise certain meanings at the expense of others; although this is quite a dangerous strategy.
In particular use a broader pitch range for the cantor compared with what a congregation can be expected to manage. Write for a specific voice - not a 'general purpose' passage that can be sung by any singer as this narrows the vocal range. Your parish is thus more likely to acquire a distinctive musical voice.
[c] In turn this opens the way for setting the verses and responses in different keys or modes (basic divide here between major and minor keys; but also between the old church modes for those who like archaic approaches). This means that a verse - or even a response - has to modulate - or else you use bridge passages between verses and responses for this purpose. Modulation also compels you to use a wider range of secondary, inverted and other chords (7ths, 9ths, diminished etc), imparting greater vitality to the whole. It is inadvisable though to try this on rhythm guitarists who only read off a limited range of chord sequences.
[d] Provide an introduction (i) to set automatically the 'tonality' of the piece for the Cantor, who just picks his/her opening note from that context: so there is no need to 'sound the opening note' before you begin (ii) Reuse that introduction in modified form for linking passages and a concluding phrase to the whole psalm setting. In this way greater coherence can be imparted to a form where the differences between response and verse can create a very 'biity' stop-go effect.
[e] Use different accompaniments (textures and harmonies - including chord selection) to match the changing moods of the text as you work through the verses. Motivic or figurative cross fertilisation can also be used developmentally across a piece. A changing variety of articulations, dynamics and instrumentations also enhance text. All this can be done without changing the vocal line. Most basically of all: if your melody (esp. in the response) is delivered by a 'single-line' instrument this releases other instruments (notably keyboards & guitars) to do this sort of thing more effectively. With Guitarists though this approach requires inside knowledge of playing techniques and ability to read specialist Classical Guitar notation. With Organs specify stops for particular effects - ditto with electric pianos and synthesisers! In other words write for specific instruments, as this gives you more options, despite the self-imposed limitation this implies. It also gives greater precision to your writing.
(f) Differing accompaniments can also signal the differences between passages for the Cantor and those for the congregation. These are most useful at the start e.g. slender accompaniment for Cantor's opening statement of the response; followed by something more powerful/solid/differently textured that 'tells' congregations to sing. Even bolder: using the same response melody, have the Cantor sing this to a different chord progression from that which then accompanies the congregation. Don't forget the option of the Cantor singing certain passages/phrases unaccompanied. The contrast with accompanied passages can be highly effective. Don't forget the 'drone' either! (very good for texts that invite soaring appeals in free time by the Cantor).
[g] Given that the texts have Gelineau-type rhythmic patterning, you can use highly stylised rhythmic articulation to fit in with and enhance the rigid pulse that underpins it. This can deliver terrific 'punch' where the mood of the text demands it. 'Bevenot' type chanting (influenced by monastic plainchant) cuts against this and often smooths things out; although it can be very effective - so be prepared to use it where appropriate. Note that the Gelineau system is primarily chordal; whereas the Bevenot system is basically linear, despite underpinning by a few held chords. Both systems obviate the need to write entirely different settings for each verse, as can happen with a genuine 'through composed' work. This saves valuable composition and learning time!

[alan29]

One of the very frustrating things about the new version of the psalms is that it frequently throws in extra syllables and whole lines, so chants based on regular stress patterns just don't fit any more.
So the alternatives are either through composed settings - which can prove challenging for cantors who don't sight read, or chants based on long reciting notes - which are a poor fit for places where the music is guitar based.
I fear parishes will either stick with what they are already doing and risk a visit from the Spanish Inquisition, or (even worse) will abandon singing the psalms all together.
If only the men in purple who decided on these changes had consulted with people who actually know the score!

[High Peak]

Two points strike me......This saves valuable composition and learning time!

Thank you. Some interesting thoughts and ideas there.

[Nick Baty]

Totally agree that "composers have an opportunity to rethink how music is composed for them". However, the psalms were only available from 09 May and the process for applying for Permission to Publish was only made known mid-August. Much scrabbling around at the moment. And I, like others, have been adapting existing settings where possible.

The copyright system is not as simple as it may appear. Admittedly, Colloquium is approving settings and also acting as agent for the US Bishops who claim to own the text. One repetition of a phrase which is considered inappropriate means the psalm will be winging its way back to you. I've been challenged on a 6/4 bar which Colloquium thought should be 3/2 and I've been asked to add a # at a point I don't feel appropriate.
Example: My setting for Christmas Midnight has been blocked for the phrase, "who is Christ, who is Christ the Lord..." Apparently, I've turned "Christ" into a name. Btw, "Christ" is used as a name twice in the Exsultet.

And do bear in mind that, where there's an error in the Lectionary, you are expected to reproduce it faithfully.
Isiah 12, for example:
Easter Vigil: "With joy will you draw water...."
Baptism of the Lord: "With joy you will draw water...."

I could go on but there's no point. The poetry and rhythm of the psalms have been removed for no discernible reason.

[dmu3tem]

Yes, I have been adapting some settings too. This is not always damaging. Rather to my surprise I found that at times I could actually improve on the original setting. There are certainly aspects of the new texts that are irritating; but in my case I wonder whether this might simply be because I have got used to what I had faced before; although I did note they were more 'wordy'. The new translation still uses the Gelineau system of rhythmic patterning; so if you compose with that in mind (as I frequently did in the past) then the business of lines with differing numbers of syllables is no more of a problem than before. It only becomes a serious issue if you 'through compose'; but here an adaptation from a setting for the Grail poses fewer challenges precisely because the rhythmic pattern has already been allowed for. Recently I have found melismas quite a useful device for wriggling round such problems as do occur. Don't forget that Grail translations also used stanzas of unequal length too. Indeed I am uncertain whether this is more of an issue now than before. One aspect though is illustrated by comparison between translations of 'The Lord Is My Shepherd'. Under the Grail (and the metrical hymn in the old Scottish Psalter = Crimond) you had 5 verses with 4 lines each. Under the new regime you have 4 verses - 1 each with 6 lines and 5 lines respectively, 2 with 4 lines. I can deal with this; but I am curious to know why this change was made. Is it something to do with the layout of the original text, depending on which manuscript was used? Or is it driven by the fact that the English/American language - and the society it reflects - is changing all the time? Certainly the meaning is subtly shifted as a result.

[mcb]

The new translation still uses the Gelineau system of rhythmic patterning; so if you compose with that in mind (as I frequently did in the past) then the business of lines with differing numbers of syllables is no more of a problem than before.

This isn't always the case, regrettably. The new translators have not always been concerned to preserve the sprung rhythms of the Hebrew the way the Grail version did so well. (Indeed that was a stated aim of the Grail version – to provide a translation singable using Gélineau-type settings.) So for instance in Ps 146(145) we used to have

It is the Lord who keeps faith for ever

but the new version is

It is the Lord who preserves fidelity for ever

which has far too many syllables to fit a Gélineau-type psalm tone with three stresses in the line. What's frustrating is that it's not at all clear what the change is for: in my judgement, the old and new versions are identical in meaning; it's just that the old version was idiomatic English whereas the new version seems to have been translated by a robot with a dictionary.

[Nick Baty]

In the same psalm we have: "The LORD who opens the eyes of the blind,
the LORD who raises up those who are bowed down."

In the present Lectionary two words are added to make this into a sentence: "It is the Lord..."

[dmu3tem]

Yes, it is true I was making a generalisation; to which of course there might well be exceptions. However I am afraid the examples you give do not qualify.

First, with Gelineau-style psalm texts what matters is not the number of syllables (which is variable) but the fixed number of stresses.

Second, I see no difficulty with 'It is the LORD.....' You just have 3 preliminary up beats before coming down heavily on LORD.

''Fidelity' is more of a problem. But if you put the weight on DEL as your middle stressed syllable that wriggles round the difficulty, although a rapid enunciation of 4 syllables will be tricky for a singer. A solution here is to use melismas and extend selected note-lengths on syllables 2-4.

Thus 'Fi (quaver) Del ............ (minim plus 2 quavers)i(2 quavers)..ty........(dotted minim)' - all within a single 4/4 bar.

You will see then that I impose a highly stylised and potentially percussive rhythmic pattern by using notes of fixed but unequal and proportionate lengths. I am not tied to a sequence of equal length reciting notes as people influenced by Solesmes style plainchant would do. English, after all, is a member of the Germanic family of languages; and German can be percussively explosive and rather jagged. I remember this approach raised a lot of eyebrows when I demonstrated it at an SSG summer school singing training workshop at Whitby years ago. The tutor asked 'is that how you speak? 'My answer was 'Yes', and proceeded to show him. The point here is that we often enunciate a given passage in different ways; especially if we want to emphasise certain meanings and emotions at the expense of others. This itself is the product of the way we as individuals react differently to a given passage. The purist will - rightly - say this is not Gelineau Psalmody as its author conceived it, especially if you exaggerate the rhythmic patterning. It is my development from it; and it works for me; not least because it solves a lot of the problems discussed above.

[Nick Baty]

Yes, it is true I was making a generalisation; to which of course there might well be exceptions. However I am afraid the examples you give do not qualify.

And quite a few exceptions: Many extra words appear, whole clauses are inserted all over the place and extra lines appear willy-nilly. Re-arrangement of words puts the stresses in different place.
Verse lengths are very irregular: Some having 5 lines, four lines, then three lines.

Second, I see no difficulty with 'It is the LORD.....'

Me neither. My issue is that without "It is..." this is not a sentence. And I will challenge this as for one celebration those words are included and in another they're not.

[dmu3tem]

I suppose that ultimately we will have to differ about how frequently infelicities occur; and partly these are a matter of individual taste and individual modes of expression. Yes, there are difficulties with the new version, but the Grail one was not without its issues too. My attitude is that basically we have to work with what we have got, and try to look at such problems as a challenge to be constructively overcome.

In turn this involves us developing our technique/toolkit of compositional devices. It also depends on the musical ideas we have. I frequently find that a musical idea that seems (to my biased eyes/ears) to be pretty good refuses to cooperate with the text; whereas others - with different musical ideas - just sail through the problem, usually because they have conceived the music simultaneously with looking at/reciting the text. Here I would suggest that a composer who thinks motivically rather than as a tunesmith might have an advantage. In other words compositional methodology can be a pretty important factor; especially the balance between instinct and conscious selection of particular procedures/devices. I very much doubt whether any translation would satisfy everyone all the time.

The great advantage of a Gelineau influenced psalm text is that, in its original conception, musicians were involved in making the translations; and to a large extent that aspect has been handed down even to the Monks of Conception text. I personally am thankful for this mercy. Most of the time it seems that Psalm translations have been done by linguists without much thought for how it would work with music; and I thought it highly likely that would be the case here. By definition a linguist with equal specialist musical knowledge is a very rare bird. I suppose this may be because, according to some medics/psychologists, we use different parts of our brains to process music and words, although even they admit there is some overlap/conjunction between the two.

[mcb]

Yes, it is true I was making a generalisation; to which of course there might well be exceptions. However I am afraid the examples you give do not qualify.

First, with Gelineau-style psalm texts what matters is not the number of syllables (which is variable) but the fixed number of stresses.

Second, I see no difficulty with 'It is the LORD.....' You just have 3 preliminary up beats before coming down heavily on LORD.

''Fidelity' is more of a problem. But if you put the weight on DEL as your middle stressed syllable that wriggles round the difficulty, although a rapid enunciation of 4 syllables will be tricky for a singer. A solution here is to use melismas and extend selected note-lengths on syllables 2-4.

Thus 'Fi (quaver) Del ............ (minim plus 2 quavers)i(2 quavers)..ty........(dotted minim)' - all within a single 4/4 bar.

You misunderstand, I think? It is the LORD who preserves fidelity for ever has four stresses, where the previous version, faithful to the Hebrew and following a pattern that fits Gélineau-type tones, had only three. The new version no longer works with settings of that type.

[Southern Comfort]

The new translators have not always been concerned to preserve the sprung rhythms of the Hebrew the way the Grail version did so well. (Indeed that was a stated aim of the Grail version – to provide a translation singable using Gélineau-type settings.) So for instance in Ps 146(145) we used to have

It is the Lord who keeps faith for ever

but the new version is

It is the Lord who preserves fidelity for ever

which has far too many syllables to fit a Gélineau-type psalm tone with three stresses in the line.

What's frustrating is that it's not at all clear what the change is for: in my judgement, the old and new versions are identical in meaning; it's just that the old version was idiomatic English whereas the new version seems to have been translated by a robot with a dictionary.

Although it looks as if the new text is asking for

It is the Lord who preserves fidelity for ever

with four stresses in the line,

in fact Dom Gregory Polan who who oversaw the revision was of the opinion that you could continue with three stresses, thus:

It is the Lord who preserves fidelity for ever

i.e. with a much larger number of subsidiary syllables between two stresses than usual. He used this principle freely throughout the revision. The little spurts of syllables add to the impression of wordiness that we have already noticed.

[dmu3tem]

Yes, this was the approach I used - no stress on 2nd syllable of 'pre-serves'. Certainly I found I could make things work musically without too many problems when I did this.

More broadly, I think we are quibbling. There will always be issues with any text or translation; and you can bet that composers (and maybe liturgical linguists too) will moan. The question is whether in general such issues are so prolific as to make a translation really awkward for composers to work with. Unless you do statistical comparisons between different translations I don't think we will get very far. Merely citing examples whose validity, as we have seen, can be disputed, simply turns into futile Scribes and Sadduces type debating.


What we should be looking at are developing compositional methodologies to deal with the texts that are in front of us. Here is a device I just tried out:

Use a skeletonised version of the verse material as an introduction to set up the tonality; followed by the usual response-verses pattern. In this case I drove a rhythmic chordal figure through a chord sequence which then formed the basis of more extended disguised Gelineau verses. The chordal rhythm was also used at the end of each response accompaniment. This introduction covered 6 bars in quick time; so it is not very long!

Am I 'reinventing the wheel'? The device seems so simple that I am amazed I have not thought of it before.