Is the distinction between a sung mass and a mass with singing important? The GIRM gives options of what you can do at each point a piece of the proper comes up, and nowhere does it suggest that having made one choice you must then be consistent for the rest of mass.
Two more interesting observations on the GIRM:
1) You can't sing a hymn in place of a proper.
2) You can sing another antiphon from an approved book of antiphons. There are no limits specified to this, so you could sing another day's or another part of the proper from the graduale romanum, which is an approved book.
As to whether the Graduale serves the community or the liturgy, I would most enthusiastically say "Yes it does."
I hope this starts a correspondence as long as the one I caused by mentioning a certain hymn this morning.
Associations and Styles of Music
Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Forgive me droning on here, but I've been stewing on this for a few months.
At the intellectual level I've accepted a role for the Graduale for some time, but it's only recently that I've been able to work out what it might be at the practical level. I was asked to sing in a local (High) Anglican church for All Souls and was tempted into it by the promise of a little chant. They used the (older form) of the Anglican Gradual and I was stunned by how easy it was, how instinctive the psalm tones were for choir and congregation. Then on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception we had a voluntary Mass at school and, running out of time, I decided to use the Anglican Use Gradual in its newer form. No need to borrow the stage piano, no need to practise on said instrument, no need to work out which of the permutations of Towers of Ivory praying for Bolton Wanderers might be the most appropriate - just get on with what's in the book. I sang the tones to myself in the week before and we had a 15 minute sing through on the Friday evening. For those who don't know, I think that I'm right in saying that the new Anglican Use Gradual uses the same texts as the 1974 Graduale, but in (King James?) English not Latin. The effect was stunning. Prayerful participation, words from Scripture rather than devotional poetry, and so stress-free because it just happened. Finally, a couple of weeks ago I took some of our Year 11s to Cambridge to Mass in Latin, with sung propers and it was simply beautiful with participation in spades (sung dialogues, Mass ordinary etc.).
We know that a future with fewer priests is coming our way, and in our diocese we are actively planning for a future in which there will be one Mass for the whole community – no more family Mass followed by solemn Mass at 11, but one for all. When eventually the trads and the guitar fans are sharing pew space it seems to me that there will need to be a less subjective way of choosing music than “I prefer 4 part harmony” or “I want something with a bit of a beat”. I think the Graduale holds the key to this objective choice. Sacrosanctum Consilium specifically called for a wider opening of the treasury of Sacred Scripture than existed before Vat II. In response we gained a reading but lost the ‘nuggets’ of scripture from the Introit, Offertorium and Communio. Now I’ll accept that if the only possibility were propers in Latin then you could argue that the scriptural text is not being shared at all, but if there’s a possibility of propers in the vernacular (and the Council did suggest advantages in using the vernacular for readings) then using the Propers would respond to the wishes of the Council.
It seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed to systematically replace the inspired words of Scripture with the words of Wesley, Faber, Haugen, Kendrick et al (note that I'm not saying you can't do it, but rather that we ought not to begin from the assumption that we are going to do it - which is in fact what almost every church in the land does by only choosing hymns). I would suggest that, at the very least we should have a preference for scriptural texts over other texts when used in Mass. I love the hymn “All My Hope on God is Founded” and believe it to be in a different league, musically, from “God’s Spirit is in My Heart” – nevertheless the latter is more consistent with practice in the Roman Rite before the 1940s. There’s no reason why we can’t be composing new music for the proper texts and I’d personally be as happy to use plainchant propers and propers set in the more modern style. I think that we can and should be using the assigned texts of the Graduale at least from time to time. It’s not true to say that the Graduale only operates on a one year cycle because in a number of places it offers variants for Year A, B C. And even if it didn’t, it would be wrong to assume that it doesn’t fit the ‘theme’ of the Mass. Presbyter pointed out on this site some time ago that the Mass doesn’t have a single theme in any case (bear in mind that the second reading is essentially a continuous reading rather than matching the Gospel, OT reading and Psalm). How does it serve our communities if we zero in on only that one theme at the expense of the other possibilities? We’ve all been at Masses where every hymn has the word ‘bread’ in it just because the Gospel is the feeding of the 5000. Likewise many of us will have been at liturgy committee meetings where a hymn was chosen almost at random because there were only 2/3 hymns known to the congregation that fit the theme
What struck me about using the Anglican Use Gradual was that, armed with a copy of the Grail Psalter and the NRSV Catholic Edition (ready for the new lectionary) someone with the right skills could use the same chants, different translation and produce something eminently usable, and saleable in a matter of a few weeks. Communion chants would be a doddle, a simple antiphon to sing, interspersed with psalm verses, words changing weekly but with only eight main variants on a tune. We’d cut down the number of new tunes our congregations would need to know and could well be offering them meatier spiritual fare than we currently do.
Next Sunday’s Mass offers these texts:
Int. My eyes are forever turned towards the Lord; for he shall release my feet from the snare; look upon me and have mercy on me, for I am abandoned and destitute.
V/ Unto you, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul; O my God, I trust in you, let me not be put to shame.
Off. The ordinances of the Lord are right, bringing joy to all hearts, sweeter than the honey or the honeycomb. Therefore your servant will observe them.
Comm. “Whosoever drinks the water that I shall offer”, said the Lord to the Samaritan woman, “shall have within him a spring of water welling up into eternal life”
I can’t help feeling that they would offer richer fare than “Gather Us In” or “Forty Days and Forty Nights”.
And one last hobby horse – when a good choir sings motets and anthems in Mass it is every bit as much taste driven as the decision to sing Farrell/Walker etc. When a choir sings “O Taste and See” at Communion on the 14th Sunday (the antiphon is “Gustate et videte”) it’s no longer a decision based on taste, but rather it is music at the service of the liturgy. The lectionary forces us out of our comfort zone in the choice of reading, the Graduale could do that with our sung texts. And yes, it is permissible to substitute one text for another but hopefully you get the idea that “O Taste and See” has a natural home on the 14th.
For those interested in propers in English – the New Liturgical Movement had a post on the 9th March linking to propers available free online.
At the intellectual level I've accepted a role for the Graduale for some time, but it's only recently that I've been able to work out what it might be at the practical level. I was asked to sing in a local (High) Anglican church for All Souls and was tempted into it by the promise of a little chant. They used the (older form) of the Anglican Gradual and I was stunned by how easy it was, how instinctive the psalm tones were for choir and congregation. Then on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception we had a voluntary Mass at school and, running out of time, I decided to use the Anglican Use Gradual in its newer form. No need to borrow the stage piano, no need to practise on said instrument, no need to work out which of the permutations of Towers of Ivory praying for Bolton Wanderers might be the most appropriate - just get on with what's in the book. I sang the tones to myself in the week before and we had a 15 minute sing through on the Friday evening. For those who don't know, I think that I'm right in saying that the new Anglican Use Gradual uses the same texts as the 1974 Graduale, but in (King James?) English not Latin. The effect was stunning. Prayerful participation, words from Scripture rather than devotional poetry, and so stress-free because it just happened. Finally, a couple of weeks ago I took some of our Year 11s to Cambridge to Mass in Latin, with sung propers and it was simply beautiful with participation in spades (sung dialogues, Mass ordinary etc.).
We know that a future with fewer priests is coming our way, and in our diocese we are actively planning for a future in which there will be one Mass for the whole community – no more family Mass followed by solemn Mass at 11, but one for all. When eventually the trads and the guitar fans are sharing pew space it seems to me that there will need to be a less subjective way of choosing music than “I prefer 4 part harmony” or “I want something with a bit of a beat”. I think the Graduale holds the key to this objective choice. Sacrosanctum Consilium specifically called for a wider opening of the treasury of Sacred Scripture than existed before Vat II. In response we gained a reading but lost the ‘nuggets’ of scripture from the Introit, Offertorium and Communio. Now I’ll accept that if the only possibility were propers in Latin then you could argue that the scriptural text is not being shared at all, but if there’s a possibility of propers in the vernacular (and the Council did suggest advantages in using the vernacular for readings) then using the Propers would respond to the wishes of the Council.
It seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed to systematically replace the inspired words of Scripture with the words of Wesley, Faber, Haugen, Kendrick et al (note that I'm not saying you can't do it, but rather that we ought not to begin from the assumption that we are going to do it - which is in fact what almost every church in the land does by only choosing hymns). I would suggest that, at the very least we should have a preference for scriptural texts over other texts when used in Mass. I love the hymn “All My Hope on God is Founded” and believe it to be in a different league, musically, from “God’s Spirit is in My Heart” – nevertheless the latter is more consistent with practice in the Roman Rite before the 1940s. There’s no reason why we can’t be composing new music for the proper texts and I’d personally be as happy to use plainchant propers and propers set in the more modern style. I think that we can and should be using the assigned texts of the Graduale at least from time to time. It’s not true to say that the Graduale only operates on a one year cycle because in a number of places it offers variants for Year A, B C. And even if it didn’t, it would be wrong to assume that it doesn’t fit the ‘theme’ of the Mass. Presbyter pointed out on this site some time ago that the Mass doesn’t have a single theme in any case (bear in mind that the second reading is essentially a continuous reading rather than matching the Gospel, OT reading and Psalm). How does it serve our communities if we zero in on only that one theme at the expense of the other possibilities? We’ve all been at Masses where every hymn has the word ‘bread’ in it just because the Gospel is the feeding of the 5000. Likewise many of us will have been at liturgy committee meetings where a hymn was chosen almost at random because there were only 2/3 hymns known to the congregation that fit the theme
What struck me about using the Anglican Use Gradual was that, armed with a copy of the Grail Psalter and the NRSV Catholic Edition (ready for the new lectionary) someone with the right skills could use the same chants, different translation and produce something eminently usable, and saleable in a matter of a few weeks. Communion chants would be a doddle, a simple antiphon to sing, interspersed with psalm verses, words changing weekly but with only eight main variants on a tune. We’d cut down the number of new tunes our congregations would need to know and could well be offering them meatier spiritual fare than we currently do.
Next Sunday’s Mass offers these texts:
Int. My eyes are forever turned towards the Lord; for he shall release my feet from the snare; look upon me and have mercy on me, for I am abandoned and destitute.
V/ Unto you, O Lord, have I lifted up my soul; O my God, I trust in you, let me not be put to shame.
Off. The ordinances of the Lord are right, bringing joy to all hearts, sweeter than the honey or the honeycomb. Therefore your servant will observe them.
Comm. “Whosoever drinks the water that I shall offer”, said the Lord to the Samaritan woman, “shall have within him a spring of water welling up into eternal life”
I can’t help feeling that they would offer richer fare than “Gather Us In” or “Forty Days and Forty Nights”.
And one last hobby horse – when a good choir sings motets and anthems in Mass it is every bit as much taste driven as the decision to sing Farrell/Walker etc. When a choir sings “O Taste and See” at Communion on the 14th Sunday (the antiphon is “Gustate et videte”) it’s no longer a decision based on taste, but rather it is music at the service of the liturgy. The lectionary forces us out of our comfort zone in the choice of reading, the Graduale could do that with our sung texts. And yes, it is permissible to substitute one text for another but hopefully you get the idea that “O Taste and See” has a natural home on the 14th.
For those interested in propers in English – the New Liturgical Movement had a post on the 9th March linking to propers available free online.
-
johnquinn39
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 4:44 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Birmingham
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
It seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed to systematically replace the inspired words of Scripture with the words of Wesley, Faber, Haugen, Kendrick et al ...
There are very few words in the hymns of Wesley and Haugen that are not Scripture.
There are very few words in the hymns of Wesley and Haugen that are not Scripture.
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
The Anglican Use Gradual is available as a free pdf. Had a look and picked 6 places at random. It strikes me as the product of misguided love. The proper plainsongs are not feasable in most parishes (and if they are to be done at all, best do them properly in Latin), and the simple chant-based replacements just don't work with the stresses of English, not even when they are tweaked slightly. That presumably is why everyone from reformation on has invented their own native language chants.
There certainly is a role for chant-based music, but I fear that a mangled version of plainsong is not it.
Alan
There certainly is a role for chant-based music, but I fear that a mangled version of plainsong is not it.
Alan
-
NorthernTenor
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 7:26 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Southwark
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Reginald wrote
No fogiveness necessary. Your stewing has resulted in some good flavours [that's enough of that metaphor].
What you're pointing out is what we can see in the GIRM: when the processionals - introit, offertory, communion - are sung, the Church's order of preference is first the Graduale Romanum, next the Graduale Simplex, then "a song from another collection of psalms and
antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference". No mention of the Wesleys here (much as I love their hymns). If a priest doesn't want Latin in these places, the Anglican Use graduale and other sources give us vernacular options based on the Graduales.
The GIRM's order of precedence in relation to the psalm appears to be different, at least in England and Wales: "The following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary: either the responsorial gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the responsorial psalm
or the Alleluia psalm from the Graduale Simplex".
However, there is no reason why we should not improve common practice in relation to the Lectionary psalm, which is for chanted verses to alternate with metrical responses. The problem with this is that metrical responses are not necessarily known by the congregation, and they interrupt the flow of the psalm-verses, and so our sense of its meaning. We could address these problems by using psalm-tones for the verses and some form of common-formula chant for the response; this would also connect us with the tradition of chanting the psalm. Incidentally, I believe it's a bad idea for parish choirs to chant the verses - they tend to drag, and it's usually best left to a Cantor. Another option would be restrict the response to the beginning and the end, so allowing the verses to be through-chanted.
Forgive me droning on here, but I've been stewing on this for a few months.
No fogiveness necessary. Your stewing has resulted in some good flavours [that's enough of that metaphor].
What you're pointing out is what we can see in the GIRM: when the processionals - introit, offertory, communion - are sung, the Church's order of preference is first the Graduale Romanum, next the Graduale Simplex, then "a song from another collection of psalms and
antiphons, the text of which has been approved by the Bishops’ Conference". No mention of the Wesleys here (much as I love their hymns). If a priest doesn't want Latin in these places, the Anglican Use graduale and other sources give us vernacular options based on the Graduales.
The GIRM's order of precedence in relation to the psalm appears to be different, at least in England and Wales: "The following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary: either the responsorial gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the responsorial psalm
or the Alleluia psalm from the Graduale Simplex".
However, there is no reason why we should not improve common practice in relation to the Lectionary psalm, which is for chanted verses to alternate with metrical responses. The problem with this is that metrical responses are not necessarily known by the congregation, and they interrupt the flow of the psalm-verses, and so our sense of its meaning. We could address these problems by using psalm-tones for the verses and some form of common-formula chant for the response; this would also connect us with the tradition of chanting the psalm. Incidentally, I believe it's a bad idea for parish choirs to chant the verses - they tend to drag, and it's usually best left to a Cantor. Another option would be restrict the response to the beginning and the end, so allowing the verses to be through-chanted.
Ian Williams
Alium Music
Alium Music
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Johnquinn 39 - I was trying to make a distinction between based on scripture/scriptural and a setting of a specific text.
Alan29 - I'm not enough of an expert in chant. They seemed to work, but we certainly pulled the rhythm about a bit. Is it any worse than some of what is currently in the average parish's repertoire? I know that might sound like an argument for mediocrity, but that's not how I mean it.
Alan29 - I'm not enough of an expert in chant. They seemed to work, but we certainly pulled the rhythm about a bit. Is it any worse than some of what is currently in the average parish's repertoire? I know that might sound like an argument for mediocrity, but that's not how I mean it.
-
Southern Comfort
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Dare I mention Psallite as a possible solution for those who want to follow what the Missal suggests in terms of form, and for those who find the Graduale too difficult or for whom Latin is not an option?
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
johnquinn39 wrote:It seems to me to be fundamentally wrong-headed to systematically replace the inspired words of Scripture with the words of Wesley, Faber, Haugen, Kendrick et al ...
There are very few words in the hymns of Wesley and Haugen that are not Scripture.
Gentle readers (and posters): please, please, please use the Quote facility when quoting each other - I am a busy bear, and do not really have lots of spare time to correct your syntax. If you want to quote some or all of a post, just click the 'QUOTE' button at the top right of the post to create your new post, then, if necessary, delete any parts you do not want to quote. Your own comments can be added underneath. Finally, click the Preview button to check that it looks right. If it doesn't, please fix it.
It is important that we can easily see when someone is being quoted, and who they are.
I thank you.
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
blog
-
organist
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:39 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster cathedral
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Plenty of food for thought here. I must say I do love a good hymn but I rather think the use of a chant is a good idea too. Cantor sings response and all join in - Attende Domine is a good one for Lent. I asked the precentor at the cathedral if we would be singing at the preparation of gifts at the Saturday evening Mass and he said Lent 1 would be silence - some restraint needed. In fact since then we have had choirs singing motets so no use of the fine chants introduced last year. The congregation readily sing Vespers to chant in English but there is a problem if no music is provided as happened last week! We managed Ok but it would have been better to have the chant in front of us.
At the Anglicans we are singing Compline twice this month. It was billed as "Singalong" in the morning last Sunday which rather suggested karaoke
and 6 people turned up with a choir of 5! Next time it will be described as "sung to Gregorian chant". I noted that nearly everyone was singing confidently. Again the notes are provided and we do an edited version which is good as I rather think there are too many prayers! I'm all for a bit of silence!
At the Anglicans we are singing Compline twice this month. It was billed as "Singalong" in the morning last Sunday which rather suggested karaoke
and 6 people turned up with a choir of 5! Next time it will be described as "sung to Gregorian chant". I noted that nearly everyone was singing confidently. Again the notes are provided and we do an edited version which is good as I rather think there are too many prayers! I'm all for a bit of silence!-
organist
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2004 11:39 pm
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster cathedral
- Location: London
- Contact:
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Never despair dear Nick.....
What makes me pause is the priests who go right through seminary and then come out and start saying Mass in Latin and NOBODY knew!!!!
See The Tablet this week 7 March for a thoughtful articles by Tina Beattie and Alban McCoy.
What makes me pause is the priests who go right through seminary and then come out and start saying Mass in Latin and NOBODY knew!!!!
See The Tablet this week 7 March for a thoughtful articles by Tina Beattie and Alban McCoy.
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Nick Baty wrote:I despair.
But times change and I must accept that.
My parish priest – 11 months older than I – said recently: "We must get used to the idea that we're the sad old gits now".
And we sit back and watch the youngsters with their Graduals and Libers and birettas and incense and lace.
And we sigh and remember the old days when we sang Huijbers and Tamblyn and Barr and music was the servant of the liturgy.
Alas, alas, alas....
..... and when the liturgy was not all about performance and taste but was all about really challenging people to get out there and try to bring about the Kingdom. Seems now it is all about cotton-wool comfort and nostalgia for something that was generally pretty dreadful in my experience.
Alan
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Nick and Alan are making some very wide ranging assumptions based on what has been posted here.
What I have read is a thoughtful and practical application of the Church's preferred music for entrance and communion etc, especially from Reginald. I don't see how one can possibly suggest that the proper antiphons etc are not servants of the liturgy. Neither can you suggest that doing this is all about performance and taste. It needn't be about performance any more than modern music might be about performance (and equally both could be). As for taste, surely Wesley vs Haugen requires an equivalent decision based at least partly on taste. There are many who would argue that now it is all about performance and taste but back in the 'good old days' (which we all know weren't that good) there was none of that. What that should tell all of us is that this issue was always with us, and it always will be.
What I have read is a thoughtful and practical application of the Church's preferred music for entrance and communion etc, especially from Reginald. I don't see how one can possibly suggest that the proper antiphons etc are not servants of the liturgy. Neither can you suggest that doing this is all about performance and taste. It needn't be about performance any more than modern music might be about performance (and equally both could be). As for taste, surely Wesley vs Haugen requires an equivalent decision based at least partly on taste. There are many who would argue that now it is all about performance and taste but back in the 'good old days' (which we all know weren't that good) there was none of that. What that should tell all of us is that this issue was always with us, and it always will be.
-
docmattc
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:42 am
- Parish / Diocese: Westminster
- Location: Near Cambridge
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Nick Baty wrote:... and should keep my mouth shut.
Not at all, your contribution is always welcome, and we always disagree amicably here!
-
Southern Comfort
- Posts: 2024
- Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 12:31 pm
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Nick Baty wrote:docmattc wrote:I don't see how one can possibly suggest that the proper antiphons etc are not servants of the liturgy.
Because they are not always proper.
And that's the crux of the matter. We know, from those who worked on them, that the antiphons in the Missal were only included so that the plainchant people could continue to use the prolix pieces of chant in the Graduale. And we also know that these antiphons were themselves never intended for singing - and certainly not in the vernacular. They are there to remind us that we should be singing something - but not this. (See Pierre Jounel for all of this.)
That's why I mentioned Psallite, which at least does have the merit of being based on the readings of the day, which the antiphons in the Missal definitely aren't, since our current Lectionary was not around at the time.
Nick Baty wrote:Anyway, I am no longer a member of the SSG and should keep my mouth shut.
A little bird tells me you were at the AGM. Did you resign in protest, or something?
-
John Ainslie
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:23 am
Re: Associations and Styles of Music
Southern Comfort wrote:
We know, from those who worked on them, that the antiphons in the Missal were only included so that the plainchant people could continue to use the prolix pieces of chant in the Graduale. And we also know that these antiphons were themselves never intended for singing - and certainly not in the vernacular. They are there to remind us that we should be singing something - but not this. (See Pierre Jounel for all of this.)
...or Annibale Bugnini. Love him or hate him, he knew what was going on. This is what he said about the conclusions of the study group entrusted in 1964 with the topic of singing in the Mass (The Reform of the Liturgy, p.891):
The principal role in choosing and adopting repertoires of songs for celebrations in the vernacular had to be left to episcopal conferences... The entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal were intended to be recited, not sung, and to inspire the creation of suitable songs in the vernacular.
That is why, despite recommendations that Entrance and Communion Antiphons should be used as refrains with psalms when sung – as shown in the Graduale Simplex and in the revised Graduale Romanum – no psalm references were provided in the 1970 Roman Missal, and the erstwhile psalm verse of the Entrance Antiphon was actually removed. What is in the missal is primarily intended for reading. Bugnini goes on, regarding the Offertory antiphon: 'if it is simply read it would create a textual overload of this part of this celebration' (id, p. 387) - which is why it is omitted altogether from the Roman Missal, once again on the assumption that the texts appearing there are meant for reading.
It should be noted that, because the Graduale Romanum was revised after the Missal and Lectionary had appeared, it sometimes contains texts more closely allied to the readings than those in the Missal, along with references to appropriate psalm verses. But then there is no approved translation (old or new) of those texts of the Graduale that do not appear in the Missal, including all the Offertory antiphons...